Just hours after Russia agreed to a French-brokered cease-fire, Russian troops followed by irregular Ossetian militias pushed deep into Georgia, seizing the strategic city of Gori and deploying armored vehicles on the nation's main highway that leads to capital city Tbilisi.Thick black plumes of smoke rose from Gori as panicked residents -- including the doctors and patients of the local hospital -- fled to Tbilisi in packed cars and minivans. Most locals had already abandoned Gori after it was heavily bombarded by Russian forces on Tuesday, just before Presidents Dmitry Medvedev of Russia and Nicholas Sarkozy of France announced a provisional cease-fire.
Eyewitnesses and fleeing residents said that with Russian tanks securing Gori, Ossetian militias and Russian cossacks began pillaging stores and homes. Some Georgians attempting to escape said they were told by irregulars to abandon their cars and valuables at gunpoint, and forced to walk toward Tbilisi. At least one vehicle of Western journalists was also seized at gunpoint by Russian-allied irregulars.
"The Russians are looting everything in sight. The whole city is full of marauders," said Roland Bochiashvili as he left Gori.
It still seems more likely that they're just trying to worsen Georgia's BATNA in order to get a more favorable deal. And demonstrate to the world that they can do whatever the hell they want. Still, if I were in Europe, I'd be locking in my home heating oil prices now.
You know, you might want to fake (consider pretending) that your natural sympathies go first and continually to the people of Georgia -- crushed and under bloody siege by a nation that killed millions and subjucated countless more in the past hundred years -- and not middle-class Europeans who might have to pay more for their utilities.
This is a tough issue, too, because it could matter a great deal and yet it's not really something you (or Andrew or now-moved-on-Matt or Ross) know anything about. Or are in any way competent to discuss.
Still, the nature of blogging requires you all to pontificate out your butt with utter assurance. And insouciance.
Rather damning moment for bloggers, I fear.
BTW, I'm not a troll on your blog. Though it must be said you are a bit of one on this brutual event.
I agree with Megan. Occupying Georgia would be incredibly stupid. (Russia has enough trouble with Chechnya, which haa a significantly smaller population.) Russia's goal is now pretty obviously to destroy Georgia's warmaking abilities for the next several years and cripple the infrastructure badly enough that no Georgian political leader will think of trying the same stunt for another 20 years.
Sullivan is just repulsive on this issue. Russia invades and subjegates a democratic US ally and his response is to insult Dick Cheney. The fact that any credible publication keeps Sullivan around has long passed the point of amazment. I honestly wonder sometimes if his health is effecting his ability to write and think clearly. I hope that is not the case but I can't help but wonder.
As far as Megan goes, it would be nice if she could at least pretend to have some moral outrage over this.
Heaven forbid an econ-blogger from pointing out economic ramifications of political strife!
Maybe it is hard to work up moral outrage because many Americans look on this as the Sharks and the Jets having a dust-up with no right or wrong on either side. Did Georgia "tug on Superman's cape"
or did Russia decide to smash a bug to send a message to other neighbors flirting with the West?
Perhaps John and others would be happy to have Congress repeal the laws prohibiting individual Americans from aiding and abetting rebels, freedom fighters, self-determinists, nationalists,
ethnic separatists, etc. Then, all those morally outraged by gangsters fighting each other can spend their own blood and treasure on the contest.
We know there are monsters out there but America should not go abroad looking to destroy them if they aren't bothering us.
Aren't there any other Georgia puns we can use for snarky blog post titles?
"Perhaps John and others would be happy to have Congress repeal the laws prohibiting individual Americans from aiding and abetting rebels, freedom fighters, self-determinists, nationalists,
ethnic separatists, etc."
So the sovereign nation of Georgia is on the level with rebels and self-determinists? It is interesting the difference in reaction to this invasion versus the reaction to the Isreali invasion of Lebanon. Israeli really was responding to an attack on its citizens and territory and got roundly condemed as an agressive actor for its trouble. Russia, in contrast can invade and subjegate an entire nation on dubious pretenses and nary a word is said.
John writes: "Sullivan is just repulsive on this issue. Russia invades and subjegates a democratic US ally and his response is to insult Dick Cheney."
Dick Cheney and Dumbya deserve the insults and should hear them every day for the rest of their lives. The US has ZERO moral standing to criticize the Russians here, since under the Bushpigs we've done far worse in Iraq than Russia has done (so far) in Georgia.
"As far as Megan goes, it would be nice if she could at least pretend to have some moral outrage over this."
Megan supported the Iraq war and wanted to whack protestors with a 2 by 4. If she expressed moral outrage over this she probably would just be pretending. But then you're just pretending, too, John. You're loving every minute of it. You have your Cold War back! You have your Cold War back!
Enjoy it while it lasts!
I disagree with the "dump Georgia" faction on grounds of principle.
But fatalistically, I don't think there is much we can effectively do to stop the Russians from becoming increasingly belligerent, chauvinistic, and provocative. Russia will continue to assert its authority aggressively at its western and central Asian borders. (But you won't find them playing any head games with the Chinese, BTW.)
Essentially, I believe we need to move to a long-term policy towards Russia that attempts to undermine Russian subversive tactics. We also need to focus on our domestic defenses against cyber attacks and upgrade our infrastructure against the potential use of EMPs.
There's not much we can do with our European and NATO allies, and claiming this comes as the toll for "the failed policies of Bush/Cheney" denies the trajectory we were on prior to 9/11. The Euros and Natos have always been divided, and as each has grown larger, the divisions have become deeper. Western European nations, for instance, have never felt as secure as they do now that their largest potential invaders are several countries removed.
We should use whatever influence we have to support a free state of Georgia. But we need to be cautious in dealing with Russia. The trick will be in walking the tightrope. As we can already observe, the neo-authoritarian Russian state and its subjugated media will paint whatever we do as an act of "American aggression."
The Russian games now being played against us and our interests should be very familiar to anyone who studied the Cold War. We need to calm down and keep cool while reviewing our own serious national security risks. We need to double down and refortify before we can deal seriously and plausibly with the next major power threat.
Mary Moe and Jesus,
You are a troll. Get back to third period English and stop misusing middle school computers.
MarkG writes: "As we can already observe, the neo-authoritarian Russian state and its subjugated media will paint whatever we do as an act of "American aggression.""
Wow, way to whip out those old Cold War themes! I'm waiting for the first Tass reference!
This is not your father's USSR, folks.
As for "subjugated media," I've seen that up close. It happened here between 9/11 and oh, say, 2005. And it sucked. Let's not underplay the significance of failed Bush/Cheney policies.
Where's Super Secret Russian Expert Doctor Condi Rice, anyway?
John writes: "You are a troll. Get back to third period English and stop misusing middle school computers."
Better to be called a "troll" by a malignant Cheneyite like you than to share your degenerate notions of reality, John. But way to go, avoiding addressing my point by pulling out the "troll" card.
Like I said, enjoy your neocon Neo-Cold War while it lasts.
Megan,
You can do better than this. I know you don't have to, because The Atlantic is just paying for opinions, but you can still do better. You used to work at The Economist, right? Surely they have some reporters familiar with the situation in Georgia (they seem to have reporters everywhere) -- why not call someone there and get a briefing? Why not call someone at the Georgian and Russian embassies and get their positions on the conflict, and then synthesize all of that and give us your informed opinion of what's going on?
I don't mean to pick on you in particular -- you are doing what most bloggers do, including most of your colleagues at The Atlantic. But you prominence and a platform, and together, those give you access to sources of information the rest of us don't have. Why not use them?
ML&J, Your traumatic experience with American media after 9/11 notwithstanding, you've got little appreciation for how effectively the Kremlin has acted to consume free media and suppress whatever is left.
Just as a foretaste:
That's from a report you can find at Freedom House (NT-Russia-final1 dot pdf).
Now, if you could point us to similar passages in US statute, we'll all be much indebted to you for the edification.
"The US has ZERO moral standing to criticize the Russians here, since under the Bushpigs we've done far worse in Iraq than Russia has done (so far) in Georgia."
Do individual Americans have moral standing to criticize or, as members of the group, are we all too tainted?
Moe, you're not a troll. You're a liar. Megan supported hitting those who would emulate Lenin with a 2x4. Hitting people who would emulate Lenin with 2x4s is an excellent idea. If more Leninists had been clubbed repeatedly by 2x4s early in the 20th century, a hundred million or more murders might have been avoided.
Of course, you are also the sort of thinker who believes that invading a country ruled by a neo-Stalinist regime, which has repeatedly violated a cease-fire accord put in place after it last invaded a neighbor, and then having the population formerly ruled by the neo Stalinist gangsters hold elections, in an attempt to begin self-rule, is worse than invading a nation which is ruled in the manner present day Georgia is ruled.
If the Bush Administration gave the Georgian government reason to believe that the U.S. would be willing and able to prevent a Russia intent on invading Georgia, then the Bush Administration acted very badly. However, it is a shame that, evidently, the Georgian President did not examine a map closely before coming to that conclusion.
ML&J,
I think the more relevant comparison is what we did in the Balkans under Clinton. In that case, the rough analogy would be like this: We were Russia, Serbia was Georgia, and South Ossetia was Kosovo. Remember when we bombed the crap out of a little country because we thought a tiny part of it deserved autonomy from it? That's basically what the Russians are doing to Georgia. The difference is that they aren't as squeamish about using ground troops as the Clinton administration was.
Jaybird asks: "Do individual Americans have moral standing to criticize or, as members of the group, are we all too tainted?"
If you continue to argue that the Iraq War was justified then no, you don't have that moral standing. Otherwise, go right ahead. I'll even agree with you. Russia's response has been disproportionate, brutal, and unnecessary.
We untainted Americans have a lot of work to do to wash away the stain of the Dumbya years. It won't happen overnight.
MarkG writes: "Now, if you could point us to similar passages in US statute, we'll all be much indebted to you for the edification."
Somehow I think it's worse when the press in my own country subjugates itself than when the press in a country with no free press tradition has to deal with a nasty government, Mark. But maybe that's just me.
The US is in no position to pat itself on the back here.
Will Allen replies: "Of course, you are also the sort of thinker who believes that invading a country ruled by a neo-Stalinist regime, which has repeatedly violated a cease-fire accord put in place after it last invaded a neighbor, and then having the population formerly ruled by the neo Stalinist gangsters hold elections, in an attempt to begin self-rule, is worse than invading a nation which is ruled in the manner present day Georgia is ruled."
Well, yes, I think starting a war based on lies that ends up killing (at least) 100,000 people and displacing 2 million more, while setting up a prison system filled with torture and abuse, and keeping it up for over 5 years, is worse than what the Russians have done so far in Georgia. But then I know full well that your only quibble about the war in Iraq is that we haven't been brutal enough and there haven't been more dead Iraqis.
I'm just wondering if we're officially taking the position that a position matters less than the person holding said position.
Because if Position X is wrong, Position X is wrong.
It doesn't matter if Person P, who holds that Position X is wrong, was wrong about Positions Y, Z, or Aelph if Position X is wrong.
Why?
Because Position X is wrong.
Yes, Moe, I know you think Iraqis are only fit to be an oil-slave for your material comfort, until the end of time, or until the oil runs out. That's part of your charm.
The Russia/Georgia situation has much greater parallels with the US intervention in the former Yugoslavia than the US intervention in Iraq. So I suppose that anyone who supported the US intervention in the former Yugoslavia (illegal under international law) also has no moral standing to comment in this matter.
Out of curiosity ML&J, what did you think about that US campaign?
Fred writes: "I think the more relevant comparison is what we did in the Balkans under Clinton. In that case, the rough analogy would be like this: We were Russia, Serbia was Georgia, and South Ossetia was Kosovo. Remember when we bombed the crap out of a little country because we thought a tiny part of it deserved autonomy from it? That's basically what the Russians are doing to Georgia. The difference is that they aren't as squeamish about using ground troops as the Clinton administration was."
Yes, that pesky unanimous NATO involvement in Kosovo makes the two situations exactly the same.
Canny observation.
Are there any circumstances under which any given individual would not have had the moral standing necessary to oppose the Iraq War?
Will Allen again: "Yes, Moe, I know you think Iraqis are only fit to be an oil-slave for your material comfort, until the end of time, or until the oil runs out."
If I thought that way I would have supported the Iraq war, chuckles.
Don't tell me you still swallow that "liberation" nonsense! That would be ridiculous even for a Republican at this point.
Jaybird asks: "Are there any circumstances under which any given individual would not have had the moral standing necessary to oppose the Iraq War?"
There are circumstances under which someone opposing that war could have expected to be laughed at. Let's say Pol Pot had still been alive and had opposed it, for instance.
It's like an AIDS-ridden crack whore telling a kid masturbation is wrong. In this case Dumbya and Cheney are the crack whore.
So people who supported the Iraq War but opposed the Russian "incident" are analagous to Pol Pot?
"It's like an AIDS-ridden crack whore telling a kid masturbation is wrong. In this case Dumbya and Cheney are the crack whore."
And so, in a state of utter narcissism, much of the putatively enlightened West ignored the re-enslavement of Georgia while indulging in potty-mouth.
Wonderful times. In 1939, Auden thought he'd seen a "low, dishonest decade": but I think we're about to give Auden a run for his money.
Jaybird asks: "So people who supported the Iraq War but opposed the Russian "incident" are analagous to Pol Pot?"
No. Please learn to read. First, I was very specific - I said, "If you continue to argue that the Iraq War was justified then no, you don't have that moral standing." Got that?
Pol Pot abandoned his moral standing for life. People who still argue that the Iraq War was justified still have the chance to regain their moral sanity, but they probably won't.
People who still support the Iraq War while yammering about the Russian attack on Georgia are analogous to the AIDS-ridden crack whore telling a kid masturbation is wrong.
Does that help?
Uh, no, Moe, ya' ol' embracer of nonsense. Invading Iraq was a much less efficient way to gain benefit from Iraqi oil. The most efficient way would have been to relax sanctions on the Baathist regime, in return for greater extraction.
I have no position on the motives on the Bush Administration. I can't read their minds, and frankly, their motives don't matter much. I supported the invasion because the invasion increased the chances that the Iraqi population would gain control of the oil that lies beneath their feet. They are not there yet, but they are much closer than they were five years ago, or ever would have been with the Baathists still ruling the nation.
The Russian invasion of Georgia is particularly bad because it has the prospect of destroying a development that is still fragile in that part of the world; a population choosing it's government by peaceful means. To the extent that this invasion took place because the Bush Administration helped the Georgian President develop silly expectations, that refelects badly on the Bush Administration. To the extent that this invasion took place because the Georgian President was silly in a very deadly way, that reflects badly on him. To the extent that this invasion took place because the Russian government is thuggish with regard to freely elected neighboring governments, that simply confirms what anyone with an ounce of sense already knows.
So the Russian "incident" is analagous to masturbation, then.
Erich Schwarz quotes and writes: ""It's like an AIDS-ridden crack whore telling a kid masturbation is wrong. In this case Dumbya and Cheney are the crack whore."
And so, in a state of utter narcissism, much of the putatively enlightened West ignored the re-enslavement of Georgia while indulging in potty-mouth."
So using "whore" now amounts to "potty-mouth"? In a time when the US has been openly torturing prisoners that seems like a small offense.
For those who lack the intelligence to figure it out, I oppose the Russian attacks on Georgia. I suspect (or at least hope) that it won't end up as an occupation a la what the US has done in Iraq. I think all due pressures should be brought to bear to get the Russians to pull out quickly.
But the point is that it's Bush and Cheney and their supporters who have left this country looking ridiculous in opposing this attack - just as Dumbya looked absurd lecturing the Chinese before he went over to play grab-ass with volleyball players.
Sorry if that interferes with your enjoyment of the Neo-Cold War, but that's reality.
Will Allen writes: "Invading Iraq was a much less efficient way to gain benefit from Iraqi oil. The most efficient way would have been to relax sanctions on the Baathist regime, in return for greater extraction."
But the neocons thought the oil flow would continue - that there would be no protracted unrest and that the war would begin paying for itself within a year. Wolfowitz said exactly that.
They thought they would have their war and petroleum, too. They were idiots as well as warmongers. It's a common combination.
People who think that invading a nation governed in that manner that Georgia was, and invading a government that ruled in the manner of the Iraqi Baathists, are analagous events, or even more stupidly, believe that the latter is worse than the former, are rather like people who say that defrauding a crack dealer with counterfeit bills is worse than robbing you local Wells Fargo.
So you'd be the proverbial virgin explaining to a child that masturbation is wrong, in this scenario?
Anyone who claims that only those who now oppose or always opposed the Iraq War is disqualified from passing judgments or discussing Russia's Georgia takeover is disqualified. So there! =)
Look, it's fair to criticize the administration's hopeful friendliness towards Putin as hopelessly naive in retrospect.
Discussing our current and future relations with Russia by way of the political-rhetorical sideshow of the Iraq War is nothing but unenlightening theatrical nonsense.
Jaybird again: "So the Russian "incident" is analagous to masturbation, then."
Why are you putting incident in quotes to give the impression that I used it, chuckles? That seems fundamentally dishonest.
Would you prefer an analogy that involves homicide? The Russian attack on Georgia thus far is like Jack Palance's character killing the farmer in "Shane." The US war on Iraq is like John Wayne Gacy's killing spree. Happy now?
I didn't think so.
This is how my 12:42 post should have started:
Ridicule ain't as easy as it looks...
Moe, you really think the Iraqi Baathists were a legitimate govenrnment, with legitimate expectations regarding having it's sovereignity respected, don't you?
Read very, very, carefully. The motivations of the Bush Administration was never something of importance to anyone with an ounce of sense. Attempting to divine the motivations of politicians is almost always a waste of time. Either a policy will make a situation better, or make a situation worse. If people think Baathist rule of Iraq for several more decades would have resulted in a better world, compared to ending Baathist rule, fine, that's an argument that can be made by a reasonable person, as is the oppostite argument. What is really, really, really, (really!) pointless and stupid is to argue about the motivations of the people who manned the Bush Administration. I suspect they are mostly jackals and knaves, but that is usually the case with people in that line of work.
MarkG writes: "Discussing our current and future relations with Russia by way of the political-rhetorical sideshow of the Iraq War is nothing but unenlightening theatrical nonsense."
Nothing nonsensical about it. If you don't think Dumbya's ability to whip up world approbation towards Russia over Georgia is hampered by his hypocrisy, you're simply wrong.
In the long run, I hope you're right, actually. But we need to clean our own house before we can expect to be very effective policing others for (relatively) lesser crimes.
"The Corleone Family don't have that kind of muscle anymore!"
I'd actually prefer an analogy that would result in a situation where we both agree that X is wrong... and how that trumps whether the person saying "X is wrong" might have thought that Y was cool.
Jaybird writes: "I'd actually prefer an analogy that would result in a situation where we both agree that X is wrong... and how that trumps whether the person saying "X is wrong" might have thought that Y was cool."
I do agree that X is wrong. It's just that my first reaction when I hear a Bush supporter say the Russians must be condemned here is to think they're morally insane. I don't believe they give a damn about aggressive warfare, since I know they really don't. They're just playing Cold War again. They really, really missed it.
I realize expecting people to have a consistent morality and calling them on it when they don't is a little out of style among Bush supporters, but then it would have to be.
Moe, even if your rather silly premise of the invasion of Iraq being analogous to, or worse than, the invasion of Georgia is accepted, you really aren't the sort of child who thinks hypocrisy is penalized in international relations, are you?
So people who defend the Iraq war are now Bush Supporters?
Or is it one of those things where people who defend the Iraq war are objectively Bush Supporters?
Will Allen writes: "Moe, even if your rather silly premise of the invasion of Iraq being analogous to, or worse than, the invasion of Georgia is accepted, you really aren't the sort of child who thinks hypocrisy is penalized in international relations, are you?"
I didn't say the invasion was worse, chuckles. Again, I know you're a conservative, so I'll try to keep it simple for you - the Iraq War is far, far worse than what the Russians have done in Georgia THUS FAR. I have made that clear repeatedly. It's not my fault that you can't follow along.
As for hypocrisy - if Cuba denounced the US as a human rights violator, how would you and the other howlers respond? You'd dismiss it out of hand.
So would I. I don't need Cuba telling me the US is violating human rights willy-nilly.
Would you see the bigger problem as the US's human rights abuse or would you rather spend an hour or two discussing how Cuba has no moral standing to criticize the US?
Jaybird asks: "So people who defend the Iraq war are now Bush Supporters?
Or is it one of those things where people who defend the Iraq war are objectively Bush Supporters?"
Are you capable of asking one of your questions without skewing my position? Apparently not. But people who still insist that the Iraq War was a good idea are almost invariably Dumbya supporters. That doesn't include everyone who now says, "I thought it was a good idea at the beginning, but I was an idiot/ignorant/war criminal/etc."
Why not try climbing out from under your question-rock and taking an actual position on something?
Jaybird again: "Would you see the bigger problem as the US's human rights abuse or would you rather spend an hour or two discussing how Cuba has no moral standing to criticize the US?"
I'm assuming you're too stoned to express a cogent opinion so you're just going to continue to ask stupid questions.
Carry on, Garth.
Yet what I see in the most strident criticism of the present Bush administration for all of its countless failings, shortfalls, and errors is an insistence that any administration can attain perfection.
The founders said we would strive for a more perfect union, admitting that the US would never be perfect due to human foibles.
Abuse of detainees should never have occurred, nor should loss of innocent life in Iraq or Afghanistan. But human error is a given in the world we inhabit. The question is of how we learn from failings, remedy errors, and provide justice and compensate.
Unfortunately, foreign despots insist that we be pure and free of error before we can speak or act. And fellow followers of ideology around the world agree, thus making perfection an obstacle to realistic improvement.
Moe, if cannot grasp that invasion is a synonym for waging war, that isn't my problem. I'll rephrase; Moe, even if your silly premise of the war in Iraq being worse than the war in Georgia is accepted, you really aren't the sort of child who thinks that hypocrisy is penalized in international relations, are you?
I ignore the rhetoric pertaining to morality from the Cuban government, as I ignore the rhetoric pertaining to morality from any government. Governments are almost always manned by dishonest people, and it normally is very silly to listen to dishonest people when they presume to speak about morals. I greatly prefer the dishonest people who regularly submit themselves to the possibility of peaceful removal from power, by the people they govern, to the dishonest people who do not submit themselves to such a process, but I don't for minute think that any person who controls the powers of the state is likely to have anything remotely worth listening to with regard to morality.
Your childishness in this regard is not surprising, I suppose, given the ignorant manner in which you toss around labels like "conservative" and the like. You really are an extremely silly person, aren't you?
MarkG writes: "Yet what I see in the most strident criticism of the present Bush administration for all of its countless failings, shortfalls, and errors is an insistence that any administration can attain perfection."
See what you want - it exists only in your imagination, though. I never expect perfection from a government. Ever.
What the Bushpigs have done is a far cry from mere imperfection, though. If their goal had been to screw up in every possible area then I almost have to congratulate them, because they came damn close.
"A series of minor fuck-ups punctuated by major catastrophes."
Will Allen repeats: "Moe, even if your silly premise of the war in Iraq being worse than the war in Georgia is accepted"
I'm sorry you're so morally devoid that you can't see a difference between a war that has lasted for a few days and one that has lasted over 5 years, chuckles, but I think most people can.
"Your childishness in this regard is not surprising, I suppose, given the ignorant manner in which you toss around labels like "conservative" and the like. You really are an extremely silly person, aren't you?"
If by "silly" you mean "not given to making excuses for war criminals," then yes, I'm silly. And I was being kind by calling you a conservative. You're really a Kissinger-esque apologist for war criminals - an authoritarian statist.
But if I take a position on something, it might contradict a position that I took in the past.
Or worse, it might betray that I don't have the moral standing to have such an opinion.
Which is, I'm sure you'll agree, much more worth discussing than what Russia is doing.
Well, golly, Moe, if length of time is how you judge which war is worse, we could have killed 20 million Iraqis, and ended the war, in a single day. By your titanic intellect, this would have made the Iraq war better than the Georgian war. I stand in awe your stunning intellectual achievements.
Jaybird "replies": "Which is, I'm sure you'll agree, much more worth discussing than what Russia is doing."
Since you have said exactly nothing about what Russia is doing I guess that's how you feel.
Will Allen replies: "Well, golly, Moe, if length of time is how you judge which war is worse, we could have killed 20 million Iraqis, and ended the war, in a single day. By your titanic intellect, this would have made the Iraq war better than the Georgian war. I stand in awe your stunning intellectual achievements."
I stand in awe at your inability to distinguish between a war that has killed a few hundred people and one that has killed over a hundred thousand and displaced 2 million more. But then I think that if you woke up tomorrow and heard that we'd nuked Iran and there were 10 million dead, your first question would be, "What's for breakfast?"
Your second would be, "How are we going to kill the rest of 'em?"
Then you'd slap another flag magnet on your car and go to work. Whistling.
No, MLJ, much like you, I find it preferable to point out how much better I am than critics.
It's meta, though. Instead of mocking people who say "this Russian war is bad", I'm mocking people who say "people who say 'this Russian war is bad' are bad".
It's a little late for you to try to jump on the "people who say 'people who say "this Russian war is bad" are bad' are bad" train. Mostly because we both know that people who say "people who say 'people who say "this Russian war is bad" are bad' are bad" are bad.
Moe, just because you were so stupid as to state that the criteria for judging a war was solely it's length is no reason to get all huffy. I'm sorry, but your idiocy isn't my problem.
Will Allen replies: "Moe, just because you were so stupid as to state that the criteria for judging a war was solely it's length is no reason to get all huffy. I'm sorry, but your idiocy isn't my problem."
The apostrophe in "it's" is incorrect, chuckles. This is just another small contribution towards correcting your literacy problem. Thank me later.
We may get to this problem later, but for now just let me say that your first sentence is an abortion. You should probably avoid sentences longer than ten words or so until you develop some skills.
Moe, a guy who doesn't understand what the word "hypocrisy" means has no business getting critical about excess apostrophes.