South Ossetia War

[the Interceptor]

That's a poor analogy, but let's roll with it. I guess that means you support the Iraqi insurgency, right?

Sorry, I don't see the connection here. Why would I support the Iraqi insurgency?

I don't see why that 30% should mean SO should be tethered to Georgia.

Like I said, this conflict should have been solved a long time ago. Maybe that solution would have included moving those 30% out of the schismatic regions and them becoming sovereign. But like I said, every possible solution would have a specific party suffer. Saying that 30% of people suffering is better than 70% of people is a bit too simple, especially as those 30% face much worse conditions now than the 70% did before.

So basically you admit being on the US side, and against Russia.

I am pro free, democratic countries such as the one I live in. As long as the countries of the world behave, I don't have a problem with anyone. Russia doesn't at the moment, so right here and right now, yes, I am against Russia because I think what they do is plain wrong.

Since the suffering of the Georgians and Ossetians in this conflict means nothing to you, as long as Washington gets what it wants, do you think Russia should be destroyed, or just weakened to the point they can't do anything? Or even partitioned?

This clause is so ridiculous that I refuse to address it. I thought I just made clear that I'm not happy with this whole thing.

 

[Firecat]

Sorry, I don't see the connection here.

Iraqi's defending themselves from people bursting into their homes like the masked men in your analogy? It fits that situation a heck of a lot more than Georgia/SO

 

[the Interceptor]

Iraqi's defending themselves from people bursting into their homes like the masked men in your analogy? It fits that situation a heck of a lot more than Georgia/SO

I'm afraid you took my analogy much more literal than I meant it. Also, the situation of the Iraqi insurgency is a very different one. It's a different group of people, pursuing other goals with different measures. Additionally, I think that entering Iraq whatsoever was a false move. But that's a different story...

What I was trying to say with my analogy was that both ways to handle the situation were not actual solutions. Just like Georgia either watch South Ossetians attacking Georgians or attack South Ossetia by themselves. Both ways are wrong, but you have to take one.

 

[Firecat]

I was simply applying the analogy to another situation. As I said, it can be used for a myriad of conflicts. It just didn't fit the one at discussion too well.

I think we both need to take a step back and look at this situation in terms of the bigger picture and a more global perspective instead of getting bogged down with details from on the ground.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think we both need to take a step back and look at this situation in terms of the bigger picture and a more global perspective instead of getting bogged down with details from on the ground.

Yeah, we probably do. I've done a lot of reading lately to try to gain a good overall view on the situation, but I think I'm just beginning to comprehend what's what.

 

[Firecat]

It's clear that Russia is being very aggressive lately, some of it is reactive to the United States (and I don't think pulling out of the ABM treaty was a wise thing to do). If Georgia were to become a part of NATO, how would Russia react?

I still see that part of Europe as a powder keg, one has to tread very lightly.

 

[the Interceptor]

I have the feeling that Russia is, rightly so, a bit defiant now. Kinda like:"You knew the problem, you knew that this would happen sooner or later, and you knew what we would do. You did nothing, now you pay the price." towards the west.

 

[argatoga]

It doesn't help that the West has been treated Russia pretty poorly since the SU collapsed. This hostile anti-Russian policy won't help. Russia is once again becoming a super power, but this time without the disadvantage of communism. This knee jerk Cold War era reaction by many in the West to Russian actions will just antagonize both sides. I fear we might enter another Cold War with two super powers threatening the world with obliteration due solely to misunderstanding each other.

 

[SuperStalin]

I am pro free, democratic countries such as the one I live in. As long as the countries of the world behave, I don't have a problem with anyone. Russia doesn't at the moment, so right here and right now, yes, I am against Russia because I think what they do is plain wrong.

Sure... but how did your country become a stable, free, modern democracy?

How did USA become this democratic freedomwonderland we all see today?

How have the countries of the European Union become so advanced?

... and.. how come their ex-colonies and victims of their genocide aren't so well developed nowadays?

This clause is so ridiculous that I refuse to address it. I thought I just made clear that I'm not happy with this whole thing.

But, you see Russia as the bad guy. So, what should the world do to this bad guy? There must be a final solution for Russia, right?

I mean, this conflict between Ossetians and Georgians, or Serbs and Albanians, the west always takes sides, the Russians take sides, and then
they act against the other side. Simple.

Yet, those conflicts are always a gray area. Nobody really knows how it all began, and doesn't even think it's very important who started it, just as long as "our side" wins.

So, who is the perennial evil in this type of conflicts? Is it Russia, or the mentality that desires all conflicts to have good guys and bad guys?

 

[jetsetter]

But, you see Russia as the bad guy.

Of course. It's a terrible cesspool of a country run by criminals and old communists.

 

[the Interceptor]

I think that the problem Russia has right now is Vladimir Putin. The USA still have a similar problem called George W. Bush. Maybe it's anther scale, but the problem itself is of the same nature.

I have nothing against the countries themselves, it's just that their leaders meet questionable decisions out of questionable interests.

 

[SuperStalin]

...and USA isn't run by questionable interests? Cheney is in fact a mother Theresa of our times.

 

[tigger]

Or they did know? But, in that case, they thought USA would support them.

Or was it USA that cooked the whole thing up, just to mess with Russia,
the growing superpower?

:lol: You're awfully bent on blaming this on the US aren't you? The US ambassador to Georgia told Saakashvili not to attack South Ossetia. Condi Rice went to Georgia and told Saakashvili not to attack South Ossetia. NATO told Georgia not to attack South Ossetia. He did it anyway. (Why? Maybe because he thought it would speed up his NATO membership, which it has ... which is pure idiocy.)

On top of all these warnings, and knowing that Georgia isn't a NATO member yet (no Article 5 to save his ass) ... Saakashvili knew that the Russians were ready for this. (Well, as ready as the Russians can get.) They had been repairing rail lines into Abkhazia, mobilizing combat units in Chechnya and their marines and airborne units. The Russians even practiced mobilizing troops up to the Caucasus Mountains and the 6 mile long tunnel that leads into South Ossetia. They were doing this in the week up to when Georgia attacked South Ossetia.

In short, Saakashvili just dug his grave and I think we should let him lie in it. I don't see why (other than that nice big Russian oil line that runs through it) we should want Georgia for a NATO member. They're isolated out there far east of any other NATO member, and now Russia controls 2/3 of the country, including their ports on the Black Sea.

Now, is Russia a superpower? No. Is Russia a rising superpower? Eh ... maybe in 40-50 years, if energy prices keep up the way they are and their population doesn't decrease too much. If this same thing had happened in say, the Ukraine, the Russian military would've fallen flat on it's face. With the exception of a handful of units the Russian military is not combat ready. It took them 12 hours to get to South Ossetia, when they were "ready"! Since they've been there it's just been a cluster fuck.

...and USA isn't run by questionable interests? Cheney is in fact a mother Theresa of our times.

He's one shady guy, that's for sure. He shot his mouth off and got us into Iraq, despite Colin Powell's best efforts to prevent it. Much to the benefit of his old company, of course. I don't think he's enough of a tool to do the same thing when he goes to Georgia this week (iirc he is, anyway.)

 

[SuperStalin]

:lol: You're awfully bent on blaming this on the US aren't you?

Nope. I think both the Russians and USA actually wanted all of this to happen. I think both are empires, and I feel for the small nations who are being used as pawns.

The US ambassador to Georgia told Saakashvili not to attack South Ossetia. Condi Rice went to Georgia and told Saakashvili not to attack South Ossetia. NATO told Georgia not to attack South Ossetia. He did it anyway. (Why? Maybe because he thought it would speed up his NATO membership, which it has ... which is pure idiocy.)

Perhaps Bush himself called Saakashvili when you weren't watching?

In short, Saakashvili just dug his grave and I think we should let him lie in it.

It's sad for the Georgian people.

I don't see why (other than that nice big Russian oil line that runs through it) we should want Georgia for a NATO member. They're isolated out there far east of any other NATO member, and now Russia controls 2/3 of the country, including their ports on the Black Sea.

Georgia is close to Turkey which is a NATO member.
I doubt that Russians will remain in Georgia proper for much longer,
but I think Abkhazia and South Ossetia are now a part of Russia. Which probably won't be so bad for them ( if Russia continues this course ).

It could be that Russia is just flexing its muscles, showing-off in front of Ukraine.

Now, is Russia a superpower? No.

Not as much as SSSR, but it's one of the few countries nobody would
like to mess with in any way.

 

[jetsetter]

...and USA isn't run by questionable interests? Cheney is in fact a mother Theresa of our times.

Never said the US was perfect but Russia is far, far, far worse. Corruption is standard procedure right down to the local cop in Russia.

 

[Firecat]

Just a little general knowledge of course, but still really fascinating because it's not something you think of every day. I'm only posting it because both a fox news anchor and Cindy McCain mentioned Palin having national security experience because Alaska is so close to Russia

Technically, how close are the two?

*shudder* (and not from the cold).

 

[Shawn]

The Diomede Islands, eh? Not only is one part of Russia and the other part of Alaska state, they are are on different sides of the international dateline.

 

[the Interceptor]

...and USA isn't run by questionable interests? Cheney is in fact a mother Theresa of our times.

Dear SuperStalin,

I'm gonna say this once more, just for you. Note that I highlighted the important parts:

I think that the problem Russia has right now is Vladimir Putin. The USA still have a similar problem called George W. Bush. Maybe it's anther scale, but the problem itself is of the same nature.

I have nothing against the countries themselves, it's just that their leaders meet questionable decisions out of questionable interests.

Notice something?

 

[tigger]

Nope. I think both the Russians and USA actually wanted all of this to happen. I think both are empires, and I feel for the small nations who are being used as pawns.

It's probably safe to say that there are elements of both administrations that wanted this to happen. I can't think of any reason the US would want it, but Putin certainly has been looking for an opportunity to show that he's not absolutely powerless to stop NATO expansion. For the last 15 years or so, (after Clinton told the Russians that he'd leave former eastern bloc nations under their sphere of influence/protection), they've been jumping to get into NATO. I don't see that changing until Russia can make some gains both financially and militarily.

It is sad when it comes to situations like this, but it's just the way things are.

Not as much as SSSR, but it's one of the few countries nobody would like to mess with in any way.

Ah, the deterrence value of nuclear warheads. Just about any modern volunteer army could wipe the floor with Russia's poorly trained, horribly equipped conscripts, but it will never come to that.

 

[Peter3hg]

Ah, the deterrence value of nuclear warheads. Just about any modern volunteer army could wipe the floor with Russia's poorly trained, horribly equipped conscripts, but it will never come to that.

Napoleon and Hitler made the same mistake of underestimating the Russians.