http://www2.reliefweb.int/rw/rwb.nsf/db900sid/LSGZ-6VZEMV?OpenDocument

This from 2006 I find interesting, because of what it implies about the conditions in Tskhinvali.

"Rehabilitation of Tskhinvali hospital completed in Georgia/South Ossetia conflict zone

ICRC News No. 06/69

One of the ICRC's largest projects in this region ended this week with the completion of repairs to the RepublicanHospitalin Tskhinvali in the Georgia/South Ossetia conflict zone. The hospital, which has a capacity of 600 beds, is one of the biggest in the region and had fallen into disrepair over the years. Mainly because of the conflict in the region, its buildings were in a ruinous state. The hospital faced a number of major problems: its damaged pipes meant that a clean, safe water supply could not be guaranteed, the sewage system did not work and the heating system was in urgent need of attention.

The project got under way in 2005 and was carried out in close cooperation with the hospital administration. Extensive repairs were made in the boiler room where three large pumps were replaced. The leaking central municipal water pipe was replaced and the hospital's own water and heating pipes rehabilitated. The external and internal sewage systems were put back in order and are now functioning properly. The project also included the following: repairs to the plumbing and the electrical system of the hospital laundry, the complete renovation of the generator house and the construction of a workshop, equipped with basic tools, for the maintenance team. "

Just to head off the comments... when I said that Gorbachev is less trustworthy "because he is, after all, a Russian politician" I meant because in this instance -- a dispute involving Russia -- he's not a disinterested observer. I didn't mean that Russian politicians are inherently less trustworthy. Certainly I'd stack the liars in the US up against the Russian pols anytime.

Please tell me if any of these observations are false

1. Georgia is a nominal ally of the US, which most Americans are not even aware exists

2. The Russians have been warning that the placement of missile defense shields and/or giving Soviet satellite nations entrance into NATO would be considered an act of hostility

3. The US has been seeking to expand NATO to the Russian border for a considerable time.

3. Ossetia is a small culturally diverse area in Georgia

4. Russia had peacekeepers their to “protect” the Russian minority in the area

5. Georgia sent troops into civilian Ossetia to quell separatist dissent, killing civilians and Russian peacekeepers

6. The Russians responded by sending in their own troops to push the Georgians out.

7. The Russians are now refusing to leave

Now, my questions for you are: What is the US interest in Georgia that we must protect?

What benefit do we gain from including former USSR satellites in NATO?

What do we gain by taking a militant stand against Russia over such a small territory?

Who gains most from US saber-rattling with the Russians?

I think when you answer those questions, you see that there is a lot more going on here in the US good intentions in protecting the world. Before you start stating that people are part of the "blame America crowd" how about taking a critical eye to what our country is doing.

No one is blaming the US for Russia's actions. But not one proponent of the McCain/Bush saber rattling has shown me what the US gains from confronting Russia on this issue. I have an idea of what certain politicians, defense contractors and oil barrons gain, but not what WE the people gain. So we've managed to convince the Poles that they need a missile shield. What is the use of missile shield against a tank and some bullets?

The 44 dead number goes back to Aug 13

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/13/georgia

Quote:

Neistat (Human Rights Watch) said that doctors at Tskhinvali hospital had provided figures that 273 wounded people had been treated there during the conflict and a total of 44 dead people had been brought to the city morgue. Russian and South Ossetian officials have claimed that 1,400 people were killed in the first day of fighting, mostly in Tskhinvali.

There have been reports of Ossetians burying relatives in their allotments and there are no lists of the casualties. Neistat stressed that HRW's investigation was not complete but she added: "By day five of a conflict one normally expects that there is some kind of list of the dead and injured, or at least an indication of their age and gender. But here there is no information. Absolutely nothing."

As I said, I do not claim that Lasseter is free from bias or even necessarily accurate (although you would have to agree, I hope, that McClatchy has generally been noted for reliable reporting). My point is only that there is no less reason to doubt Gorbachev -- indeed, probably a lot more given that he is, after all, a Russian politician.

I had read the McClatchy article (and, because it's McClatchy, and the article was very specific in its claims, basically trusted its accuracy). When I read the Gorbachev Op-Ed, I was looking to see if he repeated any of the discredited claims, and he didn't - (McCaltchy specifically debunked the Russian Government's claim that "the physical damage was comparable to Stalingrad and the killings similar to the Holocaust").

The fact that Gorbachev stayed away from those more fantastical claims of the Russian Government gave his Op-Ed more credibility in my view. Is it possible -- even likely -- that he exaggerated the damage done by Georgia in order to advance his claim? Absolutely - I wasn't suggesting at all that Gorbachev's version is the unimpeachably correct one.

But, as Casual_Observer points out, even if Gorbachev's version is exaggerated, it's still true that Georgia attacked Ossetia, killing civilians and Russian peace keepers and was therefore the aggressor. That fact, along with others, have been virtually eliminated from the American Government (and American media's) narrative, which is the point for which I was citing Gorbachev.