NationStates Jolt Archive

So, America: you've oranged the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and - to a certain extent - Romania. Is Azerbaijan on the list?

well, i've never heard of them, so usually that meas they're going to be invaded at some point.

-ZING!-

well, i've never heard of them, so usually that meas they're going to be invaded at some point.

-ZING!-
Zing indeed.

Not Rumania!:(
http://www.paistortuga.net/asnarin/famosillo/con_01_125%20-%20inocente.jpg

Not Rumania!:(
http://www.paistortuga.net/asnarin/famosillo/con_01_125%20-%20inocente.jpg
Why not?

Why not?
Because why should Rumania be swallowed into the Western Sphere of influenece?

Because why should Rumania be swallowed into the Western Sphere of influenece?
Last I heard, we were. (Clue: we're in NATO)

Last I heard, we were. (Clue: we're in NATO)

So what? France is, too.

(Bad joke, sorry :D)

So what? France is, too.

(Bad joke, sorry :D)
We're in Iraq. I was never asked, but we're in Iraq.
http://www.rri.ro/index.php?lmb=4&art=3611
So, no. Not France. Sadly.

Last I heard, we were. (Clue: we're in NATO)
Well um er ahh Boobies!
*Runs*

well, i've never heard of them...

O, brave new world!

So, America: you've oranged the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and - to a certain extent - Romania. Is Azerbaijan on the list?

the americans only "orange" places that need "oranging".

my understanding is that the administration in azerbaijan is following directions very well.

for those unsure of the significance of the country....it's actually very strategically important as a transit point both for oil and drugs [everybody knows the major drug cartels are intimately connected with the cia].

if a major shift occurs, you can be sure that the americans will switch regimes. but, for now, what's there is pretty good for american interests.

America is the new evil empire blah, blah, blah...

Would you rather these contries be under the influence of Russia? (which I might add still has a bunch of nukes and it's government is becomming ever more Authoritative, just like the USSR was...)

Well?

So, America: you've oranged the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and - to a certain extent - Romania. Is Azerbaijan on the list?
What the hell are you babbling about?

what does orange mean in this context?

what does orange mean in this context?

voting.

The Orange Revolution of the Ukraine kicked out the Kremlin influence so.....

voting is a good thing isnt it?

we didnt invade any of those countries (did we?) so whatever we did that got some kind of democracy going seems like a good thing to me. ...

*shrug* i have no idea what our foreign policy toward azerbaijan is.

So, America: you've oranged the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and - to a certain extent - Romania. Is Azerbaijan on the list?

There's a good chance you're right about Azerbaijan. We'll know within the next few days.

My vote is for Belarus to be next...and no, I'm not talking invasion:-)

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/08/20/lastdictatorship.shtml

To Ashmoria
I was talking about stuff like this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orange_Revolution
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rose_Revolution

It's basically populist movements, very in tune with American policies, that win or try to win power through street pressure by claiming the regime they are fighting is corrupt. That said: it doesn't meen I don't see their point, but a lot of the stuff they claimed were non sequiturs; also, the gvts. in the Ukraine, Romania, possibly Georgia have shown their incompetence by now (see the scandal in the Ukraine).


Semirhage, keep buying that. The gvt. the Ukrainians overthrew was present in Iraq (on your side, if I need specify), but it was dependant on good reliations with Russia, as any gvt. there is (clue: the Eastern half of the country was, is and will be commited to Russia's policies); Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Shevardnadze) was not a dictator, and he was opposed on principle to Putin (they almost went to war over Russia's bombing of sovereign Georgian territory that Russia said Georgia could not control, allowing Chechen Islamists to use it as a base) - but he was not populist, and would not make Georgia an American base. Also, how is antagonizing Russia getting rid of the nuclear threat? I think it only serves to highlight it.


The macrocosmos, thank you for a competent answer. If you look at what I've answered Semirhage, you'll see why I only partly agree with you. All those leaders were open to American influence, but they were wrong for America because they had an interest in preserving the statu-quo, and would not pursue adventures in politics (that accounts for most of them being corrupt - last I heard, America is neither the paragon of honest politics, nor the one called in to regulate it). Azerbaijan looks a lot like that uneasy balance, and it is the main card to play: the Americans have worked their way to the oil there.

There's a good chance you're right about Azerbaijan. We'll know within the next few days.

My vote is for Belarus to be next...and no, I'm not talking invasion:-)

http://www.mosnews.com/news/2005/08/20/lastdictatorship.shtml
Now, while there's every possible reason to send Mr. Lukashenko/Lukashenka back to his original job at the state farm, those people have been trying that for years. Look at the picture you sent: he is drinking his morning coffee (well, he looks a bit unsettled, but it may be just because he has hemorrhoids).

bump

the americans only "orange" places that need "oranging".


Well, if the French don't do something, the Muslims will continue their current revolution, and pwn France.

Then someone will have to "orange" it.

Frankly, I don't think America should have to go back to France for a third time.

Semirhage, keep buying that. The gvt. the Ukrainians overthrew was present in Iraq (on your side, if I need specify), but it was dependant on good reliations with Russia, as any gvt. there is (clue: the Eastern half of the country was, is and will be commited to Russia's policies); Eduard Shevardnadze in Georgia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eduard_Shevardnadze) was not a dictator, and he was opposed on principle to Putin (they almost went to war over Russia's bombing of sovereign Georgian territory that Russia said Georgia could not control, allowing Chechen Islamists to use it as a base) - but he was not populist, and would not make Georgia an American base. Also, how is antagonizing Russia getting rid of the nuclear threat? I think it only serves to highlight it.


First off, I DONT want the US in Iraq, I have been against this war from day one, I march in the Anti-War protests in NY before the start of George Bush's War of Vendetta (cus Saddam tried to kill his daddy, and nothing get's a spoiled brat more angry than when you threaten their gravy train).

BUT I do get a LITTLE angry when I hear about "How bad America is", but even with the incompetent government, the Office of Homeland Security that doesn't provide Homeland Security, the whole Abu Grabii mess (or however you spell it), and the train wrech response to Katrina and Rita, and the Corrupt government officals who are now being indited left and right (pun intended).

America is STILL a better place to live than Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or any number of Totalitarian hellholes I could list off the top of my head.

America is STILL a better place to live than Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or any number of Totalitarian hellholes I could list off the top of my head.

Maybe you should travel some, or read the newspaper.

While it's not a shining beacon of democracy, the last I heard Russia wasn't a totalitarian hellhole.

Maybe you should travel some, or read the newspaper.

While it's not a shining beacon of democracy, the last I heard Russia wasn't a totalitarian hellhole.

Give it another year under Putin, then we can talk about whether or not Russia is a democracy, of if it's converted into a quasi-clone of the USSR.

First off, I DONT want the US in Iraq, I have been against this war from day one, I march in the Anti-War protests in NY before the start of George Bush's War of Vendetta (cus Saddam tried to kill his daddy, and nothing get's a spoiled brat more angry than when you threaten their gravy train).
"Your side". I. e.: "US side".

BUT I do get a LITTLE angry when I hear about "How bad America is", but even with the incompetent government, the Office of Homeland Security that doesn't provide Homeland Security, the whole Abu Grabii mess (or however you spell it), and the train wrech response to Katrina and Rita, and the Corrupt government officals who are now being indited left and right (pun intended).

America is STILL a better place to live than Russia, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or any number of Totalitarian hellholes I could list off the top of my head.
Did I imply otherwise? It is a better place to live etc. But that wasn't the point. (I didn't even say the USA were responsible for whatever is f*d up in these orangings, but what is f*d up should be pointed out. It was reality vs. Bush's wishful thinking.)

Give it another year under Putin, then we can talk about whether or not Russia is a democracy, of if it's converted into a quasi-clone of the USSR.
Not by a long shot. First of all: Except for Stalin's age, the USSR was not at all the "Evil Empire" Reagan needed it to be (remember the essential acts of Mr. Gorbachev, or even people like Andropov and Chernenko - they made the USSR an inefficent, but by no means criminal colossus). Second of all: Putin comes from an ideological background and is supported by a certain group which make him, without question, a Russian nationalist (before you equate the two, consider that the sort of nationalism Yeltsin and Putin advocate brought about the disappearence of the Union, so there should be no compromise other than convenience).

Well, if the French don't do something, the Muslims will continue their current revolution, and pwn France.

Then someone will have to "orange" it.

Frankly, I don't think America should have to go back to France for a third time.

Maybe when the supposed "muslim revolution" comes into fruition, because those dastardly French are not rounding them up into concentration camps like they damn well should be, America help the revolutionaries, mostly just for the irony of turning what the French did for them around.

Maybe when the supposed "muslim revolution" comes into fruition, because those dastardly French are not rounding them up into concentration camps like they damn well should be, America help the revolutionaries, mostly just for the irony of turning what the French did for them around.

Are you saying that the muslims should be rounded up and tossed into concentration camps?

America is the new evil empire blah, blah, blah...

Would you rather these contries be under the influence of Russia? (which I might add still has a bunch of nukes and it's government is becomming ever more Authoritative, just like the USSR was...)

Well?

i don't see why russia's nuclear arsenal is relevant in this context; and the azeris are historically tied more to iran or even to turkey than they are to russia, who has little chance of restoring influence in this region in our lifetime.

Maybe when the supposed "muslim revolution" comes into fruition, because those dastardly French are not rounding them up into concentration camps like they damn well should be, America help the revolutionaries, mostly just for the irony of turning what the French did for them around.

WTF?!:confused:

I am now at a loss for words.

WTF?!:confused:

I am now at a loss for words.
Let it slide. I saw Laenis and Sierra BHTP's comments, shouted "serenity now", took a long walk and kept my well-being.

Give it another year under Putin, then we can talk about whether or not Russia is a democracy, of if it's converted into a quasi-clone of the USSR.

once again, you're not paying attention......well, you probably are, but only to right wing american reports that think that jailing the russian equivalent of the head of enron is some kind of political ploy.

the fact is that, given russian political history, it is unlikely that putin will even last much longer than another year before his successors orchestrate a coup. he is barred from running in the next elections.

once again, you're not paying attention......well, you probably are, but only to right wing american reports that think that jailing the russian equivalent of the head of enron is some kind of political ploy.

Nice cheap shot. However you are incorrect in that regards. Its amazing what happens when you don't pay taxes.

Invading Romania would be like invading Britain. Romania is a close US ally and a host to American military bases and troops.
You could say that Romania is already in the western sphere of influence.

Invading Romania would be like invading Britain. Romania is a close US ally and a host to American military bases and troops.
You could say that Romania is already in the western sphere of influence.
Did you even read the posts in the thread?

(I should point this out: I'm Romanian.)

The macrocosmos, thank you for a competent answer. If you look at what I've answered Semirhage, you'll see why I only partly agree with you. All those leaders were open to American influence, but they were wrong for America because they had an interest in preserving the statu-quo, and would not pursue adventures in politics (that accounts for most of them being corrupt - last I heard, America is neither the paragon of honest politics, nor the one called in to regulate it). Azerbaijan looks a lot like that uneasy balance, and it is the main card to play: the Americans have worked their way to the oil there.

let me first get this out in the open: i think america's long term plan in asia is to dismantle russia now, while they can, while they're weak. that sounds looney, but who would've predicted we'd be where we are now ten years ago?

take a look at a map....the americans have nearly circled the russians and over the last year or so seem to be putting themselves in a position where they will be able to attack from all sides. resources, i think, are one of the major motives - russia has more natural gas than anywhere else - but i also think the old cold war hawks are really trying to seize the window of opportunity. they know that if they sit back and wait, russia will again be a powerful nation and quite plausibly an enemy. attacking russia is the ultimate in "preventative warfare", and it's really actually happening as we speak - the chechnyan rebels are mostly funded by the cia-al qaeda-drug cartel alliance. yes, i just claimed that al qaeda is an arm of the cia.

that being said, i think the american-led oil coup in the ukraine [and let's be blunt. that's exactly what it was] was mostly a diversion tactic. russia may let the turkish republics go without much of a fight, because the primary interest in that region, long term, is likely to be china, and the russians recognize the wisdom in maintaining a strong alliance with the chinese anyways. they'll let the caucasus go reluctantly, but they'll let it go. they'll let eastern europe slide, because they know it will come back due to cultural similarities.....but the ukraine? that's like the russians organizing a coup in canada, or even in texas. the kremlin is not about to let the ukraine fall out of it's sphere of influence, probably ever, and has gone to extraordinary lengths since the coup to try and drag it back in.

as the russians are now heavily distracted, this makes it a lot easier for the americans to pick apart central asia, as they have been doing, and gives them a greenlight to wreak further havoc in syria and iran.

so, where do the azeris fall into this? practically nowhere. the pipeline is not in any real danger, and there is no real further strategic advantage in regime change. however, the azeri nation is currently split into iranian and sovereign parts.....and i could see the americans plausibly inciting somec kind of nationalist further in northwestern iran to try and weaken the iranians.

that's the only real significance i see the azeris having in the current geopolitical state of things.

-snip-
Again, we don't disagree on principle. I just have to detail precisely where we don't:
-Al Quaida is not an American ally (not anymore, at least). It may be on some level, but you would have to hold information that I do not. Otherwise, we can both presume - but let's give them the credit, shall we?
That said, Russia still has a lot in common with American policies, but America would rather go at it alone. Chechnya would be one of the common denominators.
Not to make an issue out of these.
-There was a coup in the Ukraine, in just a sense - it let streets have a direct and immediate say in Parliament, when the vote had the country split in half (much as its exact contemporary in Romania). The point in all these countries is that America assisted the overthrow of old-time leaders that would not jump straight into American arms, establishing a love-affair that is to last as long as populism does (be they independent and weary of Russia - like Eduard Shevardnadze; be they independent, but walking a fine line in countries where half the population is undisputably pro-Russia - like Viktor Yanukovych; be they Russian puppets - like Askar Akayev; Romania is not included here, and that was not an overthrow - it was just pure populism and conjenctural lookalike-ism).




Proof (for USers who are reading this): Americans are in Georgia and Romania.


If the US wants to do something for the benefit of democracy in the area, let it deal with regimes like Islam Karimov's, especially since he massacred civilian protesters and is alleged to execute Islamists by having them boil alive. Oh, wait a minute... American troops were welcomed by Karimov... (I heard he's changing his mind about the presence, so perhaps he'll be out in due time).

bump

So, America: you've oranged the Ukraine, Georgia, Kyrgyzstan and - to a certain extent - Romania. Is Azerbaijan on the list?

It is generally bad form to refer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine". We don't say "The France" or "The Greece".

It is generally bad form to refer to Ukraine as "The Ukraine". We don't say "The France" or "The Greece".
I'm still puzzled about that. I use it like this because "ukraine" literally means "on the border". "The [nation] on the border" - I know, it looks weird, but it's in the same category with "Myanmar" (noun) and "Myanma" (adjective). It's because it used to be "the territory that is on the border of Russia", and this is the actual origin of the name.
Still, you may be right.

-Al Quaida is not an American ally (not anymore, at least). It may be on some level, but you would have to hold information that I do not. Otherwise, we can both presume - but let's give them the credit, shall we?
That said, Russia still has a lot in common with American policies, but America would rather go at it alone. Chechnya would be one of the common denominators.
Not to make an issue out of these.


if you view al qaeda as an actual real organization, then, yes - russia is of course as at war with them as america is.

however, there are some of us that think bin laden is just an american puppet and that he is still working for the cia [we all know he was originally trained as a cia op]. i mean, the taliban was created by the isi, which is run by the cia....the americans propped them up for years....we can go with the whole "blowback" thing, but in some respects it makes more sense if we just assume that no blowback ever occurred and that the whole mujahideen is on the cia's payroll, purposely creating instability the world over to facilitate the onset of a one-world american-led government...

i understand the difficulties in speculating that the upper echelons of bush's administration didn't just know about 9/11 but actually helped plan it....that it really was a reichstag burning to set off the third world war....

......but if you drop all of the american propaganda that i really hope nobody actually takes seriously anymore (come on. really, people. it was one thing to believe it in '03; i may chide you as naive but you had no real reason to distrust and i'd be rather pompous to rub it in your face and say i told you so......but at this point you must be a complete doofus to actually believe we went in to iraq as liberators.) we only have two options to take:

1) the entire republican administration is a bunch of utter imbeciles and complete morons who really think it's possible to root out terrorism by bombing mosques and killing fathers, who really were trying to "liberate" iraqis....or who are wasting what precious little oil we have left on getting more oil.....

2) the vast majority of americans have been lied to and misled to believe that we are fighting a war against a reincarnation of hitler....when in reality our opposition is as manufactured as the reichstag burning communists and the economy destroying jews, and we are the reincarnation of hitler, covertly creating maniacal boogeyman in a sadistically hegellian global vampire romp.....

i know it's easier to choose one, but the evidence is on two.


-There was a coup in the Ukraine, in just a sense - it let streets have a direct and immediate say in Parliament, when the vote had the country split in half (much as its exact contemporary in Romania).


whomever won the vote should have taken office; and my understanding is that yanukovich won the original vote, if by a hair then by a hair, but won nonetheless. it was mostly timoshenko [oil industry pawn] screaming accusations that were never proven that set off the re-election......but by this time all of the accusations had made yanukovich lose support in the west, and hence he may have lost the second vote, which perhaps should have never happened.

to me, this is a coup, it's just a sneaky coup....sneaky enough that it has condy rice all over it. i agree that yuschenko was popular in the half of the ukraine where he won, but saying that his forceful push into power was giving the streets a greater say would be like saying a john kerry coup would be giving the streets it's say - which would be true in california, but not in alabama. i'm sure you yourself realize this, being that you are located in romania, but few people in the west realize that the guy that was overthrown actually managed about 49.5% of the vote or so, and that was after a heavy smear campaign carried out after he downright won the first election.....


The point in all these countries is that America assisted the overthrow of old-time leaders that would not jump straight into American arms,


but the ukrainians did jump into american arms, practically.....they sent troops (a lot of troops) to iraq, although both parties planned on pulling out even before the election.....

it's unquestionable that big oil was a huge factor, but yushchenko simply hasn't done anything that would further american interests in the region - he's moved closer to france and germany, not to america. judging solely by the actions of the administration, american involvement doesn't make any sense unless to spook the russians into a sense of confusion and insecurity......it's a cold war tactic on every level.

establishing a love-affair that is to last as long as populism does (be they independent and weary of Russia - like Eduard Shevardnadze


i know very little of the situation in georgia and romania and so will not comment on that which i know not of.

what, precisely, does "bump" mean?

To The macrocosm (I don't want this to seem a "to do" list or something - just that it would be a very lenghty text if I were to reply by including bits of yours. Sorry.):
- I see your point about Al Quaida, but (as you said) I cannot see the world in those terms. We can agree to disagree, especially since we agree on so many other topics. I started this thread because I don't agree with American presence in Iraq etc. (I also hate the fact that my country is in there)
- the Ukraine thing needs to be nuanced. There was a helluvulut of bias on both sides. My point about it being a coup coincided with yours: half the country was allowed, in a murky situation, to decide for the other without due electoral process (in the first, decisive phase - the true "orange revoltion"). That's what I meant when I said "the street". (ie: a storming). America's involvment and backing had an important part to play. The same for Georgia etc.
- the leaders mentioned could be quite anti-Russian policy. Somebody said that Russia is going Soviet: it's quite the contrary, as Russia is a nationalist and opportunistical (not ideological) entity. All the problems in the area stem from the fact that Russia and the US are giants that can compromise over the heads of other inheritors of the Soviet Empire. The Soviet legacy is preserved in other two conflicting forms: Communist conservatism (a weak force that is confined to Russian politics) and statu quo perestroikists that opposed Russia for being an apostate. The most obvious example of the latter is Eduard Shevardnadze, former foreign minister of the USSR under Gorbachev and architect of the detente with America (incidentally, to paint him as a dictator required a lot of idiocy on the part of those who did it).


- "bump" is used when a thread is moving out of focus because it had no new replies. You bump the forum and it moves to first position so people who are not looking through all the pages of the forum get to see it, and perchance reply.

bump

I'm going to take a position completelly different from that of the previous posters and say that the 'orange revolutions' were actually a good thing. They were certainly not coups. All these countries were dominated by an oligarchy of former communists trying to get their grip on power in the new, more democratic conditions (just one example: Eduard Shevarnadze, the Georgian president, had been the Soviet Foreign Minister).

Their methods included control of the press and of the media in general (and we all know how hard it is for a politician to become popular if he/she lacks media coverage), the granting of economical 'fiefs' to subordinates supporting the party at the local level, and election fraud (another example: in Transnistria, a self-proclaimed republic owning its existence to the support received from Russia, the president Igor Smirnoff won up to 103% of the votes in certain circumscriptions - I think some people got overzelous:) ).

In all these countries, the opposition candidates won against overwhelming odds and against opponents fighting 'dirty'. Weather they received support from the US or not is irrelevant. What matters is the end result: these countries are now more open, more democratic and 'freer' than before. And if somebody had to choose between the Russian influence and the American influence, I think we all know which would be that choice.