NationStates Jolt Archive

Also, while I'm at it, the US has produced great works of art. That they are not well known is more a function of the Europeanization of higher education in the US than anything else.

The US Navy currently has 12 commissioned aircraft carriers and one more under construction.

And anyway, the United States is virtually inpenetrable, just like China or Russia or any other highly populated, highly armed nation with enormous land mass.

Russia impregnable? Ok...

Napoleon Might have disagreed with you. (yes I know he lost, but that is down to Frankenstein)

Russia impregnable? Ok...

Napoleon Might have disagreed with you. (yes I know he lost, but that is down to Frankenstein)

No country could take and hold our country. Besides our military being too powerful, it would take an army of size that dose not exist to hold all of Russia

Russia impregnable? Ok...

Napoleon Might have disagreed with you. (yes I know he lost, but that is down to Frankenstein)

I think Napoleon, and Hitler, would agree that it is virtually impossible to successfully invade Russia. Inroads can certainly be made, but the size of the force that would be required to successfully invade and hold Russia does not exist on this planet. Perhaps some alien conquerors are capable of fielding an army large enough to take Russia, but human nations are not.

No country could take and hold our country. Besides our military being too powerful, it would take an army of size that dose not exist to hold all of Russia

Yeah, but once an Army has taken Vladivostok, St Petersburg and Moscow whats left worth taking?

No country could take and hold our country. Besides our military being too powerful, it would take an army of size that dose not exist to hold all of Russia

Did anyone else just see that? He and I just agreed on something.

They had no T-80's. Where do you pull this stuff out of?

There were plenty of them sitting around in Iraq. Most were shipped back to the States to be used as targets for tests.
Saw a lot of the T64B, T72M1, and T80. Most were already destroyed or hadn't been driven out (smart crew there).

Yeah, but once an Army has taken Vladivostok, St Petersburg and Moscow whats left worth taking?

The riches of Siberia. Besides all the nations that tried to invade us were all pushed back.

There were plenty of them sitting around in Iraq. Most were shipped back to the States to be used as targets for tests.
Saw a lot of the T64B, T72M1, and T80. Most were already destroyed or hadn't been driven out (smart crew there).

Where did you get this information?

If Hitler hadn't been fighting in Africa and had managed to rid himself of Western Europe, think of all the extra troops he could have sent to Russia. Might have been different if they'd got Moscow before the winter set in.

Where did you get this information?

I was there, twice.

The riches of Siberia. Besides all the nations that tried to invade us were all pushed back.

Siberia? Sorry, no amount of Gold is worth it.

Granted. But thats why I want Russia as an Ally not a foe.

I was there, twice.

So. How do you know you haven't mistaken some of our tanks for others?

There were plenty of them sitting around in Iraq. Most were shipped back to the States to be used as targets for tests.
Saw a lot of the T64B, T72M1, and T80. Most were already destroyed or hadn't been driven out (smart crew there).

Now I know you're lying, T64 was never exported. Same for the T-80 until recently[we sold some T-80U's to South Korea to pay off some debt, they actually like the tank too]

Now I know you're lying, T64 was never exported.

It also looks like the T-72. Weather your lying or not, you still could of made a mistake on what you saw.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KNf2S8nuXcE&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LhFPcNxybIs&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVNblG9PJMk&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v0cqscEh1PU&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W9yRGqYR0Io&feature=user

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Oj6vx8Q2Q&feature=user

Or a moat. Run by Germans.

Yes. Not by Americans, as otherwise the other lot would use the Mexican Foreign Legion and get in no bother.

So. How do you know you haven't mistaken some of our tanks from others?

They had manuals in Arabic.

They had manuals in Arabic.

You have been proven worng already. Look at Chernobyl-Pripyat posts.

Yes. Not by Americans, as otherwise the other lot would use the Mexican Foreign Legion and get in no bother.

Lol!

You are right too.

Oh, I see, the "been there" syndrome, a well known thing. Once a person has been somewhere and glanced at a low-profile, ERA-covered tank with an 1-inch hole, he immediately comes to the conclusion that it's T-80 and it has been penetrated by a 25mm, and nothing in the world will convince him against his interpretation of anecdotal evidence.

You have been proven worng already. Look at Chernobyl-Pripyat posts.

Sorry, I was there. He's proven wrong.

Sorry, I was there. He's proven wrong.

Now you are an expert on Russia's tanks? Now how dose Iraq have our tanks if they werent ship out to them?

Now you are an expert on Russia's tanks? Now how dose Iraq have our tanks if they werent ship out to them?

Ukraine built T-80s and exported them, that's how.

Now you are an expert on Russia's tanks? Now how dose Iraq have our tanks if they werent ship out to them?

An expert on tank identification, because I was an infantryman, and that's part of the job.

This thread is somekind of a competition, right?

The stupidest post wins..?

Ukraine built T-80s and exported them, that's how.

The Soviet Union never shipped them, Ukraine was part of the soviet Union.

The Soviet Union never shipped them, Ukraine was part of the soviet Union.

Shipped after 1990. Or as a Russian, are you claiming that the Ukraine is part of Russia?

Artista, Russia Today is really biased, not a good source.

Artista, Russia Today is really biased, not a good source.

And western media isn't?

And western media isn't?

Well, the BBC hasn't been so far, they've shown it from both sides.

Shipped after 1990. Or as a Russian, are you claiming that the Ukraine is part of Russia?

Freshen up on your Russian history Ukraine decalred Independence in August of 1991. Thats after the gulf war.

And western media isn't?

Certainly far less than Russia Today, an appendage of the Russian state.

Certainly far less than Russia Today, an appendage of the Russian state.

Do you even watch our media?

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008812152116928720.html

Here we go, neither Russian nor Western, and reporting Mortar attacks against Gori.

Do you even watch our media?

There's no need. Your views and those of the Russia today TV channel prove it's biased.

Freshen up on your Russian history Ukraine decalred Independence in August of 1991. Thats after the gulf war.

And you didn't read my first post. I've been to Iraq twice.

First Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Next time, read my posts before you make a mistake like that again.

There's no need. Your views and those of the Russia today TV channel prove it's biased.

Oh, and you know this without even looking at that?

And you didn't read my first post. I've been to Iraq twice.

First Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Next time, read my posts before you make a mistake like that again.

Call it Gulf War 2. Operation Iraqi Freedom makes it sound like a good thing.

Oh, and you know this without even looking at that?

Looking at what?

Call it Gulf War 2. Operation Iraqi Freedom makes it sound like a good thing.

I like to refer to it as "We're baaack!"

I like to refer to it as "We're baaack!"

I lold

Do you even watch our media?

Russia Today's stated goal is to provide a positive image of Russia, just like Fox News' stated goal is to provide of positive image of shitty news coverage.

Any commentary on my Al Jazeera link?

I lold

Mind you, I didn't want to go back, because I was getting OLDER...

But I did it. You would be surprised how much the French and the Russians and Ukrainians had sold Saddam AFTER the sanctions - and Saddam was fool enough to buy the junk.

Any commentary on my Al Jazeera link?

When al-Jazeera, BBC, and FoxNews are all saying the same thing, then it's probably true.

And you didn't read my first post. I've been to Iraq twice.

First Gulf War, and Operation Iraqi Freedom. Next time, read my posts before you make a mistake like that again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80#Operators

I don't see Iraq listed.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80#Operators

I don't see Iraq listed.

I'm sorry that wikipedia is wrong.

Mind you, I didn't want to go back, because I was getting OLDER...

But I did it. You would be surprised how much the French and the Russians and Ukrainians had sold Saddam AFTER the sanctions - and Saddam was fool enough to buy the junk. No wonder they lost, they brought stuff from the French.

I'm sorry that wikipedia is wrong.

Of course it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-80#Operators

I don't see Iraq listed.

Of course it is.

Earlier you commented on the untrustworthiness of Wikipedia. One must wonder about the sudden change of opinion...

Of course it is.

Indeed it is. If I'm sitting in a T-80 in 2003, in Iraq, and I can see the vehicle markings and plates up close, and see the features of the vehicle, and match them to a US Army manual, and see the T-80 operators manual written in Arabic, then it's a T-80, and I don't care what Wikipedia has to say about it.

Indeed it is. If I'm sitting in a T-80 in 2003, in Iraq, and I can see the vehicle markings and plates up close, and see the features of the vehicle, and match them to a US Army manual, and see the T-80 operators manual written in Arabic, then it's a T-80, and I don't care what Wikipedia has to say about it.

Right. Its not like the great American soilders could make a mistake. Well even if none was shipped to them....

Fine you win.

Right. Its not like the great American soilders could make a mistake. Well even if none was shipped to them....

Fine you win.

Again, can you prove none were shipped?

Right. Its not like the great American soilders could make a mistake. Well even if none was shipped to them....

Fine you win.

It's not like the identification plate on the vehicle was wrong, the features of the vehicle didn't match the US Army manual, and the vehicle's own manual was wrong...

Right. Its not like the great American soilders could make a mistake. Well even if none was shipped to them....

Fine you win.

It is certainly plausible that the Iraqis got their hands on a goodly number, given the free-for-all weapons dealers had on Soviet equipment that occurred after 1989 and later.

This is getting better and better.

Now, will you please tell us where exactly the hole was and what were the indications that it was from 25mm cannon?

We're only 450 posts away from 2000 in the thread, folks! Let's see if we can hit it by the end of the day!

Seeing how America has to broww money from us and China, Id have to say America is the poor one. If my country was poor than tell me how do I have a laptop?

ZOMFG !!! You have a laptop?! Dat is pure ownage. :hail: you are on the peak of economic greatness. :eek:

This is getting better and better.

Now, will you please tell us where exactly the hole was and what were the indications that it was from 25mm cannon?

Front glacis, five holes. I was standing slightly behind the Bradley that took the shots.

Seeing how America has to broww money from us and China, Id have to say America is the poor one. If my country was poor than tell me how do I have a laptop?

LMAO...are u kidding me. Is that how your country judges economic stability? Look at the facts our economy is way better then yours.

I'm sorry that wikipedia is wrong.

Doesn't have it here......
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm

Funny that it doesn't list it under "Former Equipment" either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Equipment_of_the_Iraqi_Army

Or Current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Structure_at_the_start_of_the_2003_invasion

Or here......
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/gulf/Iraqiarm.html

On page 293 of the "World Encyclopedia of Weapons" (1989, Crescent Books) it gives a listing much the same as that from Global Security. Ne'er a T-80 in sight.

You going to e-mail those people and tell them "YOU DON'T KNOW MAN - YOU WEREN'T THERE"?

Doesn't have it here......
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/iraq/ground-equipment-intro.htm

Funny that it doesn't list it under "Former Equipment" either
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Former_Equipment_of_the_Iraqi_Army

Or Current
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraqi_Army#Structure_at_the_start_of_the_2003_invasion

Or here......
http://www.britains-smallwars.com/gulf/Iraqiarm.html

You going to e-mail those people and tell them "YOU DON'T KNOW MAN, YOU WEREN'T THERE"?

Sure. I could also just join Wikipedia's military group, and post pics of the junk that Saddam bought, and become an embarassment to those that sold him the shit (especially all the interesting French stuff bought after the sanctions were in place).

Front glacis, five holes. I was standing slightly behind the Bradley that took the shots.
Were the holes through or just small craters from disintegrated rounds?
Was hole depth measured (it always is in tests), what was it?

T-80 normally have applique ERA on them, effect on neighboring ERA bricks?

Nobody took any photos?

Sure. I could also just join Wikipedia's military group, and post pics of the junk that Saddam bought, and become an embarassment to those that sold him the shit (especially all the interesting French stuff bought after the sanctions were in place).


O you've more than Wiki to get on to from that list pal.

Then theres the
International Institute for Strategic Studies
http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/iraqiarmedforces.cfm

And good old Janes too.....
http://www.janes.com/security/international_security/news/sentinel/sent001013_1_n.shtml

To be fair, T-64's and other modern (well in the sense of when they were built) do look similar so it's possible either the Iraqis bought them and thought they were something else or our friend has confused something else for a T-64.

Were the holes through or just small craters from disintegrated rounds?
Was hole depth measured (it always is in tests), what was it?

T-80 normally have applique ERA on them, effect on neighboring ERA bricks?

Nobody took any photos?

Photos were taken. The rounds were M919. The ERA was scrubbed off. The range was less than 400 meters.

I think that the armor of the T-72 and T-80 are thinner than advertised, and they are counting on the ERA to save them from HEAT rounds (which we don't fire).

This wasn't a "test". I could see daylight through the holes from the inside. What was left after entry killed the crew.

Photos were taken. Good.
Hope they're not top secret?
Links?

The rounds were M919. The ERA was scrubbed off. The range was less than 400 meters. Good.

I think that the armor of the T-72 and T-80 are thinner than advertised, and they are counting on the ERA to save them from HEAT rounds (which we don't fire).
It has never been advertised at all.
There's one little thing that will make this funny. But later.

This wasn't a "test". I could see daylight through the holes from the inside. What was left after entry killed the crew.
Good. Quoted for future reference. So it means that 25mm was used to kill the tank, not ATGM. And it was glacis attack.

---

BTW, so you've served in both wars? That's 15 years. What's your rank ATM?

Back to the conflict, South Ossetian snipers and armed troops have apparently entered Gori, and the police and miliitary are evacuating civilians.

Why are South Ossetians in Gori?

Greedy fuckers.

Why are South Ossetians in Gori?

Greedy fuckers.

Again, I lold.

I was there, twice.

Was that before or after you were "a lawyer"? :tongue:

He was a lawyer? I thought he'd been in the army since the 80s?

He was a lawyer? I thought he'd been in the army since the 80s?

Could have been National Guard.

The army needs lawyers too you know. Settle claims out in the heat of battle. Compensation culture taken to a whole new extreme.

Who thinks this cease-fire will hold?

Deep Kimchi = Remote Observer = Hotwife?

Since it's Medvanecevjdjhdfh (or Dimtri if you prefer) who has ordered it, I have some hope. He seems to be less of a nutter than Vlad.

Although stranger things have happened.

Who thinks this cease-fire will hold?
Well seeing as the alternative to observing it for the Georgians is to be fucked beyond belief, and the Russians wouldn't have bothered agreeing to it if they didn't want to stop......

People need to get over themselves and learn how to talk it out as opposed to blowing the crap out of each other. Russians are too damn biased and Americans are too convinced of thier own superiority. America has no business sticking thier noses in the internal matters of Russia anyway. We're already fighting two wars and being threatened to be blown off the map by Iran. Power plays and oil rights aren't a good enough reason to kill each other for. Can't we all just concentrate on solving the problems of our own countries instead of trying to take on everybody elses problems too?

Was that before or after you were "a lawyer"? :tongue:

Before Lawyering and IT consulting.

I'm just feeling priveleged that the man who slapped these people into shape is posting on the same board as me...
Jane's Information Group (often referred to as Jane's) was founded by Fred T. Jane in 1898. Jane began by sketching ships as an enthusiast, and this gradually developed into an encyclopedic knowledge, culminating in the publishing of All the World's Fighting Ships. The company Jane founded gradually branched out into other arenas of military expertise. The books and trade magazines published by Jane's are often considered the de facto public source of information on warfare and transportation systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Information_Group

De Facto indeed. They don't know. They weren't there.

We're already fighting two wars and being threatened to be blown off the map by Iran.

You mean Iran being blown off the map and not the other way round?

You think Russia'd see how well this sort of thing works out our way....

Having watched a couple of those Russia Today episodes, I nearly laughed. "No civilians harmed by Russia"? WTF?

Since it's Medvanecevjdjhdfh (or Dimtri if you prefer) who has ordered it, I have some hope. He seems to be less of a nutter than Vlad.

Although stranger things have happened.

Vlad (The Impaler/Mother Seller) is still PM. And is directing the war. So this won't end well.

Deep Kimchi = Remote Observer = Hotwife?

I do believe you're on to something... :wink:

Back to the conflict, South Ossetian snipers and armed troops have apparently entered Gori, and the police and miliitary are evacuating civilians.

source?

He was a lawyer? I thought he'd been in the army since the 80s?

Well, he admitted to lying about being a lawyer. Everything else, he's been. :tongue:

I don't know if he was working for Microsoft before or after though...

Before Lawyering and IT consulting.

I'm just feeling priveleged that the man who slapped these people into shape is posting on the same board as me...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jane's_Information_Group

De Facto indeed. They don't know. They weren't there.

Surely anecdotal evidence - especially from DK - will trumph that. You're just wasting your time ;)

To be fair, T-64's and other modern (well in the sense of when they were built) do look similar so it's possible either the Iraqis bought them and thought they were something else or our friend has confused something else for a T-64.
The Russians didn't export the T-64.

I do believe you're on to something... :wink:

I just wanted to be sure, because after reviewing the following post, I find it hard to believe that he was an infantryman in OIF 1.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12971479&postcount=41

The Russians didn't export the T-64.

Which means it was probably the latter and he mistook another tank for a T-64 then doens't it?

You know, I'm rather dissapointed. For a while, this thread was a veritable goldmine of information, news links from both sides, and otherwise useful facts about the conflict going on in Georgia.

Alas, some jackass had to whip out their penis and slam it on the table. As is the nature of NSG, many stared in awe; more ignored it; but a few could not resist, and they just whipped out their own and put them down beside the first.


I love how self-proclaimed experts and wikipedia professors know all about everything regarding the U.S. military, the Russian military, and the how a conflict between the two would turn out. Face it, nobody knows how it would turn out. Period. Ever. All you can do is theorize.

When it comes to the capablities of the Russian army, I'm going to trust Chernobyl-Pripyat (sorry if I spelled it wrong, bud). He served in combat, and knows his shit.

When it comes to the capabilities of the U.S. military, I'm going to trust New Walonchia (sorry, more spelling), because he was (is?) a cavalry scout who served in Iraq. Again, he knows his shit.

I am not going to take the word of somebody who does a quick google search, skims an article, and then acts like they know everything about anything regarding whatever topic happens to be used.

Just thought I would throw in my two cents before dinner. :)

Nothing will happen. Also the Russians may have their shooting practice country.

Did we do something about Bush his invasion in Iraq? Not much, only shouting that he`s evil.

The Russians are evil!

I am not going to take the word of somebody who does a quick google search, skims an article, and then acts like they know everything about anything regarding whatever topic happens to be used.


I never really considered it about that, i think its more about debating your own knowledge vs the other person(s)...

Which means it was probably the latter and he mistook another tank for a T-64 then doens't it?

If anything, it was a T-72M1. T-72's and 80's[which for the most part is a 64 with a turbine engine] are almost identical without ERA, so the only way to tell would be; where the exhaust came from, if it had large or smallish road wheels and was the turret round, or squarish?



I'm still convinced it was a T-72 with shit welded onto it.


It's unlikely that the Iraqi's could maintain a T-80 at all, considering the condition their 54/55's and 72M1's were in.

Nothing will happen. Also the Russians may have their shooting practice country.

Did we do something about Bush his invasion in Iraq? Not much, only shouting that he`s evil.

The Russians are evil!

Not this again. Are you joking when saying all Russians are evil?

I don't care if you agree with our goverment or not. But to say All Russians are evil is just silly and worng. You may not trust our goverment but how can you judge an entire people by your mistrust of their goverment?

You may not trust our goverment but how can you judge an entire people by your mistrust of their goverment?

I don't know, seems you've passed judgement like that on Georgians and Americans multiple times in this thread.

I don't know, seems you've passed judgement like that on Georgians and Americans multiple times in this thread.

If it seem like that than I am sorry.

I am not saying their people are evil. Of course their are good and bad Georgians, just like there is good and bad Russians.

My problem is with the Georgian leaders. However, I am not about to say all Georgians are evil and are guilty of the crimes their goverment have done.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R-Oj6vx8Q2Q&feature=user

There's another good one. Sheesh. :rolleyes:

After having viewed the Artitsa clips, I have an even lower opinion of Russia Today than I did before. It's more blatantly propogandistic than even Fox News could ever hope to be.

The propraganda war is just as brutal it seems.

With luck, its over now. Russia goes back to Russia. Georgia goes back to Georgia, and everything is back to the way it was.

What do you think the endgame is going to be? Are South Ossetia and Abkazia going to end up being independent nations? Will Russia annex them? What will happen to North Ossetia if South Ossetia gets independence? What about other ethnic groups in the region? How can Russia be upset about South Ossetia when they did essentially the same thing in Chechnya?

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon081208.gif

Sums it up nicely.

It was Germany who killed millions of Russians, we did not do any war crimes.

That made me look twice. Russia never did any war crimes, huh?

Civilians faced a bigger threat from Stalin himself, who mowed down millions of them. The Russian Army gunned down its own soldiers who attempted to flee combat.

To say that the Russians and Stalin weren't brutal in WWII is painfully ignorant.

That made me look twice. Russia never did any war crimes, huh?

Civilians faced a bigger threat from Stalin himself, who mowed down millions of them. The Russian Army gunned down its own soldiers who attempted to flee combat.

To say that the Russians and Stalin weren't brutal in WWII is painfully ignorant.

This is true, however the "Not A Step Backwards" doctrine allowed us to hold Stalingrad, which in turn allowed us to end WWII.

source?

I saw it on the BBC. The reporters were in Gori talking to a shopkeeper when the arm turned up and moved the civilians out, because South Ossetians had moved in.


To the people talking about the ceasefire lasting, I posted a link a few pages back which said that Russian planes were still bombing villages.

What do you think the endgame is going to be?
Russia imposes their peace terms of Gerogia which compels Georgia to remain in the Russian spehere of influence. (Although how successful this will be is not certain).

Are South Ossetia and Abkazia going to end up being independent nations?
I don't know about Abkazia but from what i've been reading South Ossetia is more interested in joining North Ossetia within the Russian Federation so i doubt independence is likely. Or at least they'll practically become a Russion territory with only formal independence.

What will happen to North Ossetia if South Ossetia gets independence?
In a phrase; not a lot.

What about other ethnic groups in the region? How can Russia be upset about South Ossetia when they did essentially the same thing in Chechnya?
Um, because they're hypocrites. Also I think they're treating the situation with the same agenda in mind as they have when dealing with Chechnya, which is to assert control over the region. It's all about power, baby (wether it's called solidarity, nationalism or liberation).

Um, because they're hypocrites. Also I think they're treating the situation with the same agenda in mind as they have when dealing with Chechnya, which is to assert control over the region. It's all about power, baby (wether it's called solidarity, nationalism or liberation).

They were terroists who targeted more non-military targets. Such as-

Budyonnovsk Hospital Hostage Crisis-1995

Beslan School Hostage Crisis-2004

Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis-2002

Of course there were others, they also kindnap many people. Don't forget the many other non-military targets that were hit by them.

http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/200881382459561105.html

Al Jazeera's man in Gori is reporting that there are Russian armored units inside the town, including APC's that he has personally seen.

I saw it on the BBC. The reporters were in Gori talking to a shopkeeper when the arm turned up and moved the civilians out, because South Ossetians had moved in.


To the people talking about the ceasefire lasting, I posted a link a few pages back which said that Russian planes were still bombing villages.

It could be Georgian forces broke the ceasefire. Dmitry Medvedev has given orders for the military to defend itself in case this would happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558399.stm

Independent verification from the Beeb.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558399.stm

Independent verification from the Beeb.

Could this now offiicially be declared as a full on invasion of Georgia? I'm not seeing Russian forces puling out any time soon.

BBC is reporting that South Ossetian militants are looting Gori and burning houses, and the Russian "peacekeepers" are doing nothing to stop it.

BBC is reporting that South Ossetian militants are looting Gori and burning houses, and the Russian "peacekeepers" are doing nothing to stop it.

No one stopped Georgia forces from doing the same to them until we came in. Besides its just more misinformation.

No one stopped Georgia forces from doing the same to them until we came in.

First off, if that were true, it would be a tu quoque fallacy.

Fact is, you've provided no evidence of Georgian "Ethnic Cleansing", nor has your government. It's about time we actually see some of the proof that backs these claims.

First off, if that were true, it would be a tu quoque fallacy.

Fact is, you've provided no evidence of Georgian "Ethnic Cleansing", nor has your government. It's about time we actually see some of the proof that backs these claims.

Fact is our peacekeepers were killed unprovked. As for Saakashvili, I am hoping he is brought out of power as he must be.

Fact is our peacekeepers were killed unprovked.

And that makes for ethnic cleansing?

Could this now offiicially be declared as a full on invasion of Georgia? I'm not seeing Russian forces puling out any time soon.

There will be a certain period of rubbing the noses in it.
"Did your American instructors tell you how to rebuild your house?"
"Your new Western Style boots are very good....for running away in"
etc and so on.

They were terroists who targeted more non-military targets. Such as-

Budyonnovsk Hospital Hostage Crisis-1995

Beslan School Hostage Crisis-2004

Moscow Theater Hostage Crisis-2002

Of course there were others, they also kindnap many people. Don't forget the many other non-military targets that were hit by them.

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm simply stating that Russia's/America's/Georgia's (etc) actions are about power by asserting control and influence over a strategic point. Buying into nationalist discourse is a convienient way of justifying their actions.

I'm not forgetting anything. I'm simply stating that Russia's/America's/Georgia's (etc) actions are about power by asserting control and influence over a strategic point. Buying into nationalist discourse is a convienient way of justifying their actions.

You cannot compare South Ossetia to Chechnya.

Also the only reason why we are in this wars is because Georgian aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers.

You cannot compare South Ossetia to Chechnya.

Truth be told, you really can't. By the same token, it is also entirely incomparable to the dispute with Serbia over Kosovar independence. The differences are too stark, and the similarities far too broad to have any useful comparison available. In fact, the most accurate comparison would be the case of the Kurds in Iraq.

Also the only reason why we are in this wars is because Georgian aggression against the people of South Ossetia and Russian peacekeepers.

I'd argue that causes of a far greater strategic significance are at play, rather than these temporary concerns.

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44919000/jpg/_44919372_tskhinvali_512.jpg

Upside down turret...imagine how that one happened :eek:

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44919000/jpg/_44919372_tskhinvali_512.jpg

Upside down turret...imagine how that one happened :eek:

This whole article is good to show people the damged caused by Georgia's goverment.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558619.stm

I heard an interview with a reporter yesterday evening. That morning he worked for Russia Today, and had been for about a year. He did the first of his live, on the spot reports and mentioned there were unconfirmed reports of russians bombing villages, or something bad.

That was the end of his reporting that day. Cancelled the rest of them for him. So he quit, and despite prevaricating and not trying to blame them, it's pretty obvious they are a propoganda arm of the russian government.

My vote for best analysis from reading dozens since Friday:

Putin Makes His Move
By Robert Kagan
Monday, August 11, 2008; A15
The details of who did what to precipitate Russia's war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama.

The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too. This war did not begin because of a miscalculation by Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili. It is a war that Moscow has been attempting to provoke for some time. The man who once called the collapse of the Soviet Union "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the [20th] century" has reestablished a virtual czarist rule in Russia and is trying to restore the country to its once-dominant role in Eurasia and the world.

Armed with wealth from oil and gas; holding a near-monopoly over the energy supply to Europe; with a million soldiers, thousands of nuclear warheads and the world's third-largest military budget, Vladimir Putin believes that now is the time to make his move.

Georgia's unhappy fate is that it borders a new geopolitical fault line that runs along the western and southwestern frontiers of Russia. From the Baltics in the north through Central Europe and the Balkans to the Caucasus and Central Asia, a geopolitical power struggle has emerged between a resurgent and revanchist Russia on one side and the European Union and the United States on the other.

Putin's aggression against Georgia should not be traced only to its NATO aspirations or his pique at Kosovo's independence. It is primarily a response to the "color revolutions" in Ukraine and Georgia in 2003 and 2004, when pro-Western governments replaced pro-Russian ones. What the West celebrated as a flowering of democracy the autocratic Putin saw as geopolitical and ideological encirclement.
Ever since, Putin has been determined to stop and, if possible, reverse the pro-Western trend on his borders. He seeks not only to prevent Georgia and Ukraine from joining NATO but also to bring them under Russian control. Beyond that, he seeks to carve out a zone of influence within NATO, with a lesser security status for countries along Russia's strategic flanks. That is the primary motive behind Moscow's opposition to U.S. missile defense programs in Poland and the Czech Republic.

His war against Georgia is part of this grand strategy. Putin cares no more about a few thousand South Ossetians than he does about Kosovo's Serbs. Claims of pan-Slavic sympathy are pretexts designed to fan Russian great-power nationalism at home and to expand Russia's power abroad.

Unfortunately, such tactics always seem to work. While Russian bombers attack Georgian ports and bases, Europeans and Americans, including very senior officials in the Bush administration, blame the West for pushing Russia too hard on too many issues.
It is true that many Russians were humiliated by the way the Cold War ended, and Putin has persuaded many to blame Boris Yeltsin and Russian democrats for this surrender to the West. The mood is reminiscent of Germany after World War I, when Germans complained about the "shameful Versailles diktat" imposed on a prostrate Germany by the victorious powers and about the corrupt politicians who stabbed the nation in the back.

Now, as then, these feelings are understandable. Now, as then, however, they are being manipulated to justify autocracy at home and to convince Western powers that accommodation -- or to use the once-respectable term, appeasement -- is the best policy.
But the reality is that on most of these issues it is Russia, not the West or little Georgia, that is doing the pushing. It was Russia that raised a challenge in Kosovo, a place where Moscow had no discernible interests beyond the expressed pan-Slavic solidarity. It was Russia that decided to turn a minor deployment of a few defensive interceptors in Poland, which could not possibly be used against Russia's vast missile arsenal, into a major geopolitical confrontation. And it is Russia that has precipitated a war against Georgia by encouraging South Ossetian rebels to raise the pressure on Tbilisi and make demands that no Georgian leader could accept. If Saakashvili had not fallen into Putin's trap this time, something else would have eventually sparked the conflict.

Diplomats in Europe and Washington believe Saakashvili made a mistake by sending troops to South Ossetia last week. Perhaps. But his truly monumental mistake was to be president of a small, mostly democratic and adamantly pro-Western nation on the border of Putin's Russia.
Historians will come to view Aug. 8, 2008, as a turning point no less significant than Nov. 9, 1989, when the Berlin Wall fell. Russia's attack on sovereign Georgian territory marked the official return of history, indeed to an almost 19th-century style of great-power competition, complete with virulent nationalisms, battles for resources, struggles over spheres of influence and territory, and even -- though it shocks our 21st-century sensibilities -- the use of military power to obtain geopolitical objectives. Yes, we will continue to have globalization, economic interdependence, the European Union and other efforts to build a more perfect international order. But these will compete with and at times be overwhelmed by the harsh realities of international life that have endured since time immemorial.
The next president had better be ready.

Robert Kagan, a senior associate at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, writes a monthly column for The Post. His most recent book is "The Return of History and the End of Dreams." He served in the State Department in the Reagan administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008081001871.html

By Soviet's logic, the US could pass a law declaring it legal to invade Mexico, depose the government and make it a territory of the United States, and it would be right because we passed a law. Or amended the Constitution.

You know, people on this forum thought that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (and yes, I admit it was), because just passing approval to invade doesn't make it legal no matter how right one thinks it might be (I'm ok with deposing Saddam, but in hindsight, the sustained effort needed to bring about stability just isn't worth it). Most people on this forum bashed me for saying it was an OK thing to do - and yes, they are right to bash, because it's illegal.

Russia allows residents and citizens of another country to obtain Russian passports and become a citizen of Russia while remaining in another country. And by your reasoning, since it is legal in Russia, it must therefore be legal then to use that as a pretext to annex another country.

Really, it's illegal. So if you really want to retake Georgia, don't bother to make excuses and say it's legal - just say Russia is taking it all back, and you don't care if it's illegal.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any longer. Feel free to suck Russia's ass. You'll get little sympathy or support here.

M
Putin Makes His Move
By Robert Kagan
Monday, August 11, 2008; A15
The details of who for The Post. His most recent book is "The Return of History and the End of Dreams." He served in the State Department in the Reagan administration.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/20...AR2008081001871.html

...a large piece of C&P which strangely needs to go back to WWII for most of its parallels, when they can easily be seen in Latin American History in the 1980's and in the middle East today. That would involve mentioning certain cold facts about his former employer and his own country of residence, however.

Any luck getting through to Janes about the super secret T-80's by the way?

By Soviet's (.....) support here.

...who are you talking to...? Are you trying to pretend theres mass support on NSG for the Russians?

...a large piece of C&P which strangely needs to go back to WWII for most of its parallels, when they can easily be seen in Latin American History in the 1980's and in the middle East today. That would involve mentioning certain cold facts about his former employer and his own country of residence, however.

Any luck getting through to Janes about the super secret T-80's by the way?

It's not super secret. I was talking to a friend over at the Brookings Institution at lunch yesterday, and he said that it's well known in their circles that a lot of more modern equipment existed at the time that the US invaded and that because most of the people involved in writing these defense rags never set foot in Iraq at the time, they never reported it.

By Soviet's logic, the US could pass a law declaring it legal to invade Mexico, depose the government and make it a territory of the United States, and it would be right because we passed a law. Or amended the Constitution.

You know, people on this forum thought that the invasion of Iraq was illegal (and yes, I admit it was), because just passing approval to invade doesn't make it legal no matter how right one thinks it might be (I'm ok with deposing Saddam, but in hindsight, the sustained effort needed to bring about stability just isn't worth it). Most people on this forum bashed me for saying it was an OK thing to do - and yes, they are right to bash, because it's illegal.

Russia allows residents and citizens of another country to obtain Russian passports and become a citizen of Russia while remaining in another country. And by your reasoning, since it is legal in Russia, it must therefore be legal then to use that as a pretext to annex another country.

Really, it's illegal. So if you really want to retake Georgia, don't bother to make excuses and say it's legal - just say Russia is taking it all back, and you don't care if it's illegal.

I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any longer. Feel free to suck Russia's ass. You'll get little sympathy or support here.

Good I don't want to wast my time with an Amercain who thinks he knows our country better than we do.

South Ossetia is should not be part of Georgia and should be its own country or part of Russia. It is more Russian than Georgian anyway. Ever since thefall of the Soviet Union these people have made it clear it dose not want to be part of Georgia. 95% of the people have voted to no longer be part of Georgia. As Russian troops went in to push Georgia out, they welcomed them like heros. Are we taking Georgia? No. So your whole theory about us rebuilding our evil empire is just worng.

...who are you talking to...? Are you trying to pretend theres mass support for the Russians?

I'm talking to KLM...

...who are you talking to...? Are you trying to pretend theres mass support on NSG for the Russians?

If you read my post (which it is apparent that you didn't) I was telling KLM that there's no mass support (or sympathy) for Russia here.

Good I don't want to wast my time with an Amercain who thinks he knows our country better than we do.

I know your military equipment better than you do.

It's not super secret. I was talking to a friend over at the Brookings Institution at lunch yesterday, and he said that it's well known in their circles that a lot of more modern equipment existed at the time that the US invaded and that because most of the people involved in writing these defense rags never set foot in Iraq at the time, they never reported it.

Show me one picture of a T-80 in Iraq, you must have at least one. That is unless you made a mistake about what you saw, since no T-80s were sent to them.

I know your military equipment better than you do.

First off that wanst about our military equipment and clearly you shown us you don't. You can't tell the differnce between our tanks.

It's not super secret. .

Well, if nobody knows about it but you, its one of two things. Super secret is the nice one.


I was talking (,......)eported it.

An anecdote!!!!!! How Great. How useless.

There were some US troops over there for the last few years, I believe. And CIA people. And various other organisations. And the Brits, and even a few Aussies, Spaniards, Italians.....And not fucking one of them seems to have pointed out that every source on the subject was wrong.

Why wasn't the previously unknown poessession of t-80's trotted out by the Pentagon as propaganda- 'He had these and no one knew-we were right to go in.'?

Well, if nobody knows about it but you, its one of two things. Super secret is the nice one.

An anecdote!!!!!! How Great. How useless.

There were some US troops over there for the last few years, I believe. And CIA people. And various other organisations. And the Brits, and even a few Aussies, Spaniards, Italians.....And not fucking one of them seems to have pointed out that every source on the subject was wrong.

Why wasn't the previously unknown poessession of t-80's trotted out by the Pentagon as propaganda- 'He had these and no one knew-we were right to go in.'?

No one really cares if the Ukranians sell the T-80 to other countries (except Russia).

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44919000/jpg/_44919372_tskhinvali_512.jpg

Upside down turret...imagine how that one happened :eek:

Likely? Ammunition cookoff. The way most tanks are designed, the turret isn't locked in with bolts or an outer blocking ring, much like how WWII era battleship turrets were just slided in (much simplified) into the mountings.

They're too heavy to knock off or lift off without a crane or artillery shell, but if the ammunition cooks off, the expanding gas will force its way out through the weakest point, pushing the turret up out of the mounting and throwing it into the air. It probably flipped while being tossed.

No one really cares if the Ukranians sell the T-80 to other countries (except Russia).

How do you know Ukranian sold them T-80s. I can not find one source that said they have nor a source that list T-80s under the tanks Iraq used through the years.

It's not super secret. I was talking to a friend over at the Brookings Institution at lunch yesterday, and he said that it's well known in their circles that a lot of more modern equipment existed at the time that the US invaded and that because most of the people involved in writing these defense rags never set foot in Iraq at the time, they never reported it.

And flat earthers know the world is flat. Just like Scientologists believe we all came here in inter-galactic DC-10s.

Prove your statement. Nobody's buying anything you say without proof because of your long history of lies.

And flat earthers know the world is flat. Just like Scientologists believe we all came here in inter-galactic DC-10s.

Prove your statement. Nobody's buying anything you say without proof because of your long history of lies.

You can continue to deny reality all you like.

You can continue to deny reality all you like.

Yes, yes you can.

You can deny the fact Iraq did not have T-80s all you like.

Yes, yes you can.

You can deny the fact Iraq did not have T-80s all you like.

Like I said, I was there and you were not. And they were there.

Manuals and all. Just because you can't find it on the Internet doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Oh, and sorry about that craptastic tank blowing up in Georgia. Maybe if it wasn't a piece of shit, the crew would still be alive.

Like I said, I was there and you were not. And they were there.

Manuals and all. Just because you can't find it on the Internet doesn't mean I'm wrong.

Oh, and sorry about that craptastic tank blowing up in Georgia. Maybe if it wasn't a piece of shit, the crew would still be alive.

Wow you were there? Oh boy, theres no way your worng. America knows Russian tanks better than Russians after all. T-80 looks like other Russian tanks like the T-72.

Do you even read Arbic?

How do you know it wasnt Georgian, which would be a older export Russian version tank. If it was Russian, how do you know all the crew members died? Do you know what kind of tank it was?

Oh, and sorry about that craptastic tank blowing up in Georgia. Maybe if it wasn't a piece of shit, the crew would still be alive.

Those damn eastern tanks with their buckets always popping off!

oh.. cough (http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/rob_m1_broken/Iraq%20021.jpg) - cough (http://data.primeportal.net/m1_iraqp/rob_m1_broken/Iraq_046.jpg)

Wow you were there? Oh boy, theres no way your worng. America knows Russian tanks better than Russians after all. T-80 looks like other Russian tanks like the T-72.

Do you even read Arbic?

How do you know it wasnt Georgian, which would be a older export Russian version tank. If it was Russian, how do you know all the crew members died? Do you know what kind of tank it was?

Actually, the T-80 is not a refinement of the T-72. The T-90 is a refinement of the T-72.

Yes, I read Arabic, especially military manuals, call signs, and vehicle identifiers.

Actually, the T-80 is not a refinement of the T-72. The T-90 is a refinement of the T-72.

Yes, I read Arabic, especially military manuals, call signs, and vehicle identifiers.

I said the T-80 looks like the T-72, which it dose

You didn't answer my other questions.

I said the T-80 looks like the T-72, which it dose

You didn't answer my other questions.

They don't look alike to me - maybe you have trouble telling the difference, but I do not.

There are pictures on the news of a few Russian tanks burning up, and one of them is definitely a T-80.

There are several design philosophies followed by Russia where tanks are concerned that differ greatly from Western tank design.

The vehicles are shorter, have a smaller silhouette, and are generally intended to be lighter and faster. They have poorer gun stabilization, electronics, sights, etc. - and sacrifice crew protection. The idea is to have less expensive tanks, but more of them.

Despite improvements over the years, none of the Russian tanks is a match for the M-1, current Leopard, Challenger, or Leclerc. ERA doesn't help against APFSDS rounds at all, so that added weight is useless crap that only serves to annihilate your accompanying infantry (we'll see if anyone complains when it accidentally detonates during an exercise).

Western tanks have crew survival as a high priority, and have elaborate electronics and excellent sights - the Challenger having probably the best thermal sights to date. In any tank on tank fighting at a distance, Russian tanks might have a missile mounted (depending on the variant) that can reach many kilometers, but they can't even identify a target past 2000 meters with their own sights.

Additionally, since US munitions have moved away from HEAT and towards EFP, ERA armor is now essentially useless. So is the IR decoy system used on the T-90 - the BLU-108 submunition uses a multi-mode approach to identify targets so that IR jamming and decoys are useless.

We're generations ahead of you. Even the Javelin anti-tank missile can blow any Russian tank to flaming junk with the press of a button.

Like I said, I was there and you were not. And they were there.
So you've served in both wars? That's 15 years. What's your rank ATM?


Front glacis, five holes. I was standing slightly behind the Bradley that took the shots.
This wasn't a "test". I could see daylight through the holes from the inside. What was left after entry killed the crew.
So you mean that 25mm was used to kill the tank, not ATGM, and it was glacis attack.

You can continue to deny reality all you like.

This is exactly the same spiel creationists give when confronted with demands for proof.

So you've served in both wars? That's 15 years. What's your rank ATM?

Served, got out, went back in to serve again.

E-6


So you mean that 25mm was used to kill the tank, not ATGM, and it was glacis attack.

Yes, at close range.

Thinking about it, it would seem that Russia has not had a significant strategic success in years. It's lost Egypt, Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia, China, Afghanistan, East Germany, The Warsaw Pact, Iraq, Eastern Europe, Mongolia, the Soviet Union, Zhenbao Island, Yugoslavia, Kosovo, and, oh, it's a woeful tale!

Served, got out, went back in to serve again.
E-6
A postgraduate education normally takes 6 years, IIRC it's required for the legal profession. IT consultants too tend to need a degree. Between Iraq War and now it's not enough time, so I presume you had it already, for the first or the second war. If that's so, why didn't you serve as an officer?


Yes, at close range.
400m isn't particularly close range (a particularly close range is where you can effectively top attack the upper glacis). So, what approximate depth did these through holes have?


It's not that I'm being picky, but this is big news for the entire military world, proving all American, European and Israeli tank designers were pretty much idiots to replace 105mm with 120mm, when even a 25mm can do the job. They ought rather reduce the caliber.
It will marks a reduction in protection from the tanks of WWII.
And big news require at least a plausible story, and preferably proof. I hope you have these photos?

Uh, Vault, a Law degree takes three years, at least that's what the Bar in Ohio requires.

400M is close for a tank. Much like 6000 yard is the equivalent of point blank range for a Battleship. Depends on how big the gun is.

A postgraduate education normally takes 6 years,

Yeh.... if you're slow.

Yeh.... if you're slow.

Quite, I know people who have earned a JD and an MPA in half the time.

No one really cares if the Ukranians sell the T-80 to other countries (except Russia).

Its the buyers they tend to worry about. Also, if you can smuggle in a tank......So it really does evade me that five years on theres not a peep about it. Except from you, with the track record for distortion and out right lies.

So, either show they had them, by some verifiable source, or withdraw your comment.

Like I said, I was there and you were not. And they were there.).

The US army was there. They haven't mentioned it. Neither have any of the other nations. Neither have any of the intelligence agencies. Something which would be notable, and of interest to a large number of people and organisations has escaped every fucking one of them. But not you. The one with the track record.

Yes, I read Arabic, especially military manuals, call signs, and vehicle identifiers..).

Is there anything you can't do? (apart from verify that Iraq had T-80's)

We're generations ahead of you. ..).

Well if Iraq can have an entire line of MBTs that nobody knew about, maybe not....Are all those surveillance planes and satellites just used to look down womens cleavage?

Apparently the US has placed all Georgian ports and airports under their control and are flying air defence stuff and such in. That's what someone just said wa son the news so don't take my word for it.

Apparently the US has placed all Georgian ports and airports under their control and are flying air defence stuff and such in. That's what someone just said wa son the news so don't take my word for it.

I just looked at the Beeb and no mention. Somebody did mention earlier that Sarkozy was coming out with shite though, so that could be it. Do anything for attention that man. Its his own fault for marrying yer woman.

Apparently the US has placed all Georgian ports and airports under their control and are flying air defence stuff and such in. That's what someone just said wa son the news so don't take my word for it.

Don't worry.

Yeh.... if you're slow. I meant the full package, including undergraduate, for MS or Ph.D. But if 3 years are enough for law, I stand corrected.


Apparently the US has placed all Georgian ports and airports under their control and are flying air defence stuff and such in. That's what someone just said wa son the news so don't take my word for it.
Just hearsay.

Thought so. Phew. Looks like WWIII might be averted after all.

How can the Americans get involved if some of us don't even know where the nation of Georgia is?

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k204/firefighter3110/untitled-2.jpg

I wonder when will CIA, FBI, KGB or MIB finally stop Hotwife from uncovering their world-spanning conspiracy to hide Iraqi military data from public :D

Joke, joke.

Seems the US is using C17's is being used to haul in medical supplies, as well as a separate flight with antibiotics.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html

Not military hardware.

I meant the full package, including undergraduate, for MS or Ph.D. But if 3 years are enough for law, I stand corrected.

The ones I've highlighted are not postgraduate, just for future reference.

http://www.ibdeditorials.com/IMAGES/CARTOONS/toon081208.gif

Sums it up nicely.
Only if you're retarded.

Only if you're retarded.

Actually that's a depiction of the Uncle Jimbo Doctrine in action. Do whatever the hell you want, as long as you call it self-defense.

How can the Americans get involved if some of us don't even know where the nation of Georgia is?

http://i89.photobucket.com/albums/k204/firefighter3110/untitled-2.jpg

Didn't stop soldiers from being sent to Afghanistan... Or Somalia... Or...

Didn't stop soldiers from being sent to Afghanistan... Or Somalia... Or...

or British troops going to the Falklands. :)

Didn't stop soldiers from being sent to Afghanistan... Or Somalia... Or...

Americans need to study the world map a little bit more...

Americans need to study the world map a little bit more...

How Many Russians Know where Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Pitcairn or PEI are?

or British troops going to the Falklands. :)


Now if only we hand't scrapped Ark Royal, we could have had F-4's there. The Argie pilots would have stayed home and watched our glorious victory on TV............Without any of our ships being blown to pieces.

How Many Russians Know where Equatorial Guinea, Honduras, Pitcairn or PEI are?

I don't about other Russians but I know where all them are but PEI are.

Its sad when you don't know the differnce between your Georgia and the other one...

or British troops going to the Falklands. :)

Falklands is a little town south of EuroDisney, no? :confused:


:wink:

I don't about other Russians but I know where all them are but PEI are.

Its sad when you don't know the differnce between your Georgia and the other one...

PEI is Prince Edward Island, a Province of the Glorious Former Dominion of Canada.

And I know which Georgia is which. And Who Each Belongs to.

And When we attacked the Falklands, we won in a most Glorious manner. Unlike in Georgia where the fighting is most Common!

Falklands is a little town south of EuroDisney, no? :confused:


:wink:

Don't be silly. It's a group of islands off north-east Scotland. We were very confused when Argentina attacked. *nods*

To get back to Georgia....

How long do you think it will take to get a treaty made up and who do you think it will favor more? Georgia or Russia?

To get back to Georgia....

How long do you think it will take to get a treaty made up and who do you think it will favor more? Georgia or Russia?

Russia.

Don't be silly. It's a group of islands off north-east Scotland. We were very confused when Argentina attacked. *nods*

You were? Why? I mean, Argentina isn't that far away, seeing how close it is to the north pole...

Don't be silly. It's a group of islands off north-east Scotland. We were very confused when Argentina attacked. *nods*

Close, its a town in Scotland. The Islands were named after the Duke.

Close, its a town in Scotland. The Islands were named after the Duke.

Wouldn't that be Duke Islands close to Zanzibar?

Wouldn't that be Duke Islands close to Zanzibar?

They were named after the Duke of Falkland. (or some similar aristocrat)

They were named after the Duke of Falkland. (or some similar aristocrat)

See? It's all the fault of the aristocracy. This current conflict as well. I blame Rasputin mostly though.

See? It's all the fault of the aristocracy. This current conflict as well. I blame Rasputin mostly though.

I blame whoever decided to put Georgia next to Russia. (other than God)

Close, its a town in Scotland. The Islands were named after the Duke.

The Argies invaded Scotland.:eek:

No wonder we sank the Belgrano off Cornwall.

The Argies invaded Scotland.:eek:

No wonder we sank the Belgrano off Cornwall.

Ow, your pretend stupidity gave me chest pains i laughed so much!

I blame whoever decided to put Georgia next to Russia. (other than God)

Aaw, but Charlton Heston is dead :(

"War: Gods way of teaching Americans geography."

Ow, your pretend stupidity gave me chest pains i laughed so much!

Not so stupid. I remember being told by my father than after the invasion most people he knew, including him, thought the Falklands were off Scotland.

I think I would probably have been the same had I not had the internet.

I blame whoever decided to put Georgia next to Russia. (other than God)

I blame everyone who dosent bow down to our beloved leader, Tsar Putin!:hail:

joke.

I blame everyone who dosent bow down to our beloved leader, Tsar Putin!:hail:

joke.
Oh no, KLM. The truth can come out in the form of a joke. Also kidding. Not even I will go that far with calling Putin names.

Oh no, KLM. The truth can come out in the form of a joke. Also kidding. Not even I will go that far with calling Putin names.

Really, I don't know why people in the west don't like Putin.

The true person to blame is Mikheil Saakashvili and whatever idoit advised him to try and take our military on.

Really, I don't know why people in the west don't like Putin.

The true person to blame is Mikheil Saakashvili and whatever idoit advised him to try and take our military on.

WHAT? Uh, he wasn't planning on taking your military on, he was planning on taking out the rebels in South Osseita.

Considering they wasn't prepared in any way at all, I'm suprised Georgia even survived a full Russian assault. I guess running like heck will get you out of range.

"War: Gods way of teaching Americans geography."
Plagerism!

Any commentary on my Al Jazeera link? Got some good info.

Al Jazeera isn't that bad. They are pretty good at appearing neutral, unless it's about the US or Israel. Then it's out the window.

Speaking of them.

Russia isn't stopping according to their sources.
http://english.aljazeera.net/news/europe/2008/08/2008813153517926662.html

Can one of you Russians explain WHY the hell would they be blowing up the entire Georgian coast guard. IIf it's true I hope to hell Russia has to pay for those ships. They are "In Port" AKA in Barracks and out of the fight.

So I looked at a map for the first time since this conflict started (Google Earth, actually) and I noticed that Gori isn't just on the border or anything, it's fucking deep into Georgia.

The Gori shots are from 2003. Google Earth won't have been updated in the last few days I doubt.

http://i.usatoday.net/sports/_photos/2008/08/13/tsirekidzex-large.jpg

Maybe the key to this conflict is in Judo.

Putin Vs The Georgian in a winner takes all bout?

The Gori shots are from 2003. Google Earth won't have been updated in the last few days I doubt.

Yeah, but has the geographical location changed since then?

Nope. Same place.

Nope. Same place.

It actually shuffled a little to the left in the early 1900's :p

It actually shuffled a little to the left in the early 1900's :p

That explains a bit about this situation and Eastern European politics in general, then...all the cities are constantly on the move.

So I looked at a map for the first time since this conflict started (Google Earth, actually) and I noticed that Gori isn't just on the border or anything, it's fucking deep into Georgia.

Actually it is near the border. Not the Russia-Georgia border but the S. Ossetia-Georgia border. See how close it is to the Ossetian capital. Only about 20 miles away, well within range of modern artillery. It may be "deep into Georgia" but Georgia isn't exactly Russia in size.

http://europe.mapquest.com/maps/map.adp?address=&city=Gori&state=&zipcode=&country=GE&title=%3cb%3e%3cspan%20style%3d%22display%3ainline%3bmargin%2dbottom%3a0px%3b%22%20class%3d%22locali ty%22%3eGori%3c%2fspan%3e%20%3cspan%20style%3d%22display%3ainline%3bmargin%2dbottom%3a0px%3b%22%20cl ass%3d%22country%2dname%22%3eGE%3c%2fspan%3e%3c%2fb%3e%3c%2fspan%3e&cid=lfmaplink2&name=&dtype=s

Remember, Russia doesn't see the map like this.

http://www.faqs.org/docs/factbook/maps/gg-map.gif

They see it like this.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9e/Georgia%2C_Ossetia%2C_Russia_and_Abkhazia.svg/676px-Georgia%2C_Ossetia%2C_Russia_and_Abkhazia.svg.png

Actually it is near the border. Not the Russia-Georgia border but the S. Ossetia-Georgia border. See how close it is to the Ossetian capital. Only about 20 miles away, well within range of modern artillery. It may be "deep into Georgia" but Georgia isn't exactly Russia in size.

I was kind of talking about the Russia/Georgia border.

I'm beginning to suspect that Russia's just pissed that Georgia isn't fighting them. That's why they're running around being asses. They're pissed that they didn't get to show off destroying the Georgian military.

A postgraduate education normally takes 6 years, IIRC it's required for the legal profession. IT consultants too tend to need a degree. Between Iraq War and now it's not enough time, so I presume you had it already, for the first or the second war. If that's so, why didn't you serve as an officer?



400m isn't particularly close range (a particularly close range is where you can effectively top attack the upper glacis). So, what approximate depth did these through holes have?


It's not that I'm being picky, but this is big news for the entire military world, proving all American, European and Israeli tank designers were pretty much idiots to replace 105mm with 120mm, when even a 25mm can do the job. They ought rather reduce the caliber.
It will marks a reduction in protection from the tanks of WWII.
And big news require at least a plausible story, and preferably proof. I hope you have these photos?

Yeah, Hotwife is talking so much bullshit. A 25 mm gun at 400 metres couldn't penetrate a T-34 let alone a T-80 unless said T-80 was built out of tin or something.

In which case it's not a genuine T-80.

(This doesn't, however, contradict the general fact that the Russian tanks ARE technologically inferior to NATO tanks. Mainly thanks to the U.S.'s overinfalted military budget that we're pretty much able to out innovate on a technological level anyone.)

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html

Russia issues the US an ultimatum to either support Russia or Georgia.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/13/us.russia.diplomacy/index.html

Russia issues the US an ultimatum to either support Russia or Georgia.

I love how CNN overstates things.

Same subject from the BBC: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7559905.stm

That's a pretty pro map in that BBC article.

I was kind of talking about the Russia/Georgia border.
Where that border is depends on whether Ossetia is part of Russia or part of Georgia: that's the whole question.

Ossetia is part of Russia or part of Georgia
It's (was) both.
The status quo ante was Northern Ossetia as part of Russia and Southern Ossetia as part of Georgia.
I really couldn't get your point. :confused:

(This doesn't, however, contradict the general fact that the Russian tanks ARE technologically inferior to NATO tanks. Mainly thanks to the U.S.'s overinfalted military budget that we're pretty much able to out innovate on a technological level anyone.)

Huh?
How many US tanks fire guided ammo comparable to the Refleks? None.
How many US tanks sport an active anti-missile defense system comparable to the Arena? None.
How many US tanks fire tandem-charge HEATs? None.
How many US tanks have an autoloader? None.
While we're at it, when was the current US MBT designed? The '70s (ok, there are new variants and upgrades, but the M1 was designed in the '70s, while the T-90 was designed in the '80s.)

I wouldn't rate US tanks as "pretty innovative". They're very well protected by that superthick armour of theirs, and have very good electronics, but as for innovation in the other fields US tank designers seem to be quite conservative.

Andaras. Um ... what?

Where that border is depends on whether Ossetia is part of Russia or part of Georgia: that's the whole question.

The old border has a certain sense to it. Along the top of a mountain range.

The "new" border (SO part of Russia) looks suspiciously like the line Israel draws with its Wall in the West Bank.

How many US tanks fire guided ammo comparable to the Refleks? None.
The Sheridan :p
How many US tanks sport an active anti-missile defense system comparable to the Arena? None.
None yet, it's in development, after TROPHY wasn't used on US vehicles because it would cost jobs.
How many US tanks fire tandem-charge HEATs? None.
Why would they bother? They have a very good sabot round, something that Kaktus and Kontakt-5 isn't very good against.
How many US tanks have an autoloader? None.
1) Good training of crew members > a machine.
2) They are somewhat dangerous to the crew.
3) The FCS tank-esque vehicle is going to have one, and the Stryker MGS already does.
While we're at it, when was the current US MBT designed? The '70s (ok, there are new variants and upgrades, but the M1 was designed in the '70s, while the T-90 was designed in the '80s.)
Seeing as the T-90 is just a rebranded T-72, that would be 60s and early 70s design by your own measure...
I wouldn't rate US tanks as "pretty innovative". They're very well protected by that superthick armour of theirs, and have very good electronics, but as for innovation in the other fields US tank designers seem to be quite conservative.
Aye it's the electronics that are really the best feature. Very useful.

The Sheridan :p
So nothing since the '80s?

None yet, it's in development, after TROPHY wasn't used on US vehicles because it would cost jobs.
"In development" in the US government complex means "we spend shit tons of money on it and it only has a 20% chance of ever coming out and only after 15 years."

1) Good training of crew members > a machine.
Since when?

3) The FCS tank-esque vehicle is going to have one, and the Stryker MGS already does.
Doesn't this contradict point one?

This will all end with things being decided by politicians not people and causing lots of anger.

So nothing since the '80s?
Damn right. Got a decent sabot round out for a long time, and NATO's tank crews are well trained at shooting small targets, IIRC US tank gunners need to hit a 1x1m target at long range before they're considered qualified. No real need for tank-based missiles.
"In development" in the US government complex means "we spend shit tons of money on it and it only has a 20% chance of ever coming out and only after 15 years."
I'm pretty sure that both Raytheon and BAE Systems (Huzzah!) have prototypes that are being looked at. Being British, the BAE effort will probably be working nicely in a couple of years and bought within five.
Since when?
Since a properly trained crew can knock out 15 shots per minute at their peak and an autoloader can load about 10 times in the same time.
Doesn't this contradict point one?
No. Just because these vehicles are going to have an autoloader doesn't mean that they're particularly good, they just make vehicles lighter.

1) Good training of crew members > a machine.
2) They are somewhat dangerous to the crew.
3) The FCS tank-esque vehicle is going to have one, and the Stryker MGS already does.
Actually, lack of autoloader is a definite disadvantage. A strong, large man can be a bit faster, but very quickly gets tired, 120mm rounds are heavy. But most importantly, having space for the 4th crew member increases tank's weight by over 10 tons. So autoloader saves lots of weight, and as such cost. If weight itself isn't convincing enough, think of the extra armor and equipment it could be used for.

Danger to the crew in T-72 and T-80 comes not from the autoloader, but from overloading the tanks. The autoloader only handles IIRC 24 rounds, however there's extra space in the hull where it's possible to load more rounds. And it's these extra rounds that blow; the autoloader itself is very safe.


None yet, it's in development, after TROPHY wasn't used on US vehicles because it would cost jobs.
Well, that US is going to have active protection and autoloaders is really only a proof of his point - that Soviet/Russian tank design is more innovative than Western - they already have for two decades what US is only planning to have. Plus, even among West, the US tank design is the most conservative.

The Soviet/Russian tanks are weaker because they have to be built and serviced on much smaller budget, thus are forced to use simpler electronics and have less weight.
Abrams may cost only 3 times more to build, but the annual maintenance cost is 10-12 times higher; it grows very fast with weight and electronics. That's why a number of countries, offered choice of Western and Russian tanks, opted for the latter - they could afford to buy M1 or other Western tanks, but not to service them.

---

BTW, Iraqis having M1 not only wouldn't save them, but change things for the worse. They wouldn't be able to take care of them, and so the tanks wouldn't run at all. And they certainly wouldn't be able to make any use of M1 electronics - even in the old T-72, they didn't use its ballistic computer and FCS, and aimed straight. Any tank is useless for such crews.

Iraq hasn't even bought their tanks, it got most of them for free in the Soviet era, as surplus equipment or spares, "sold" basically for nothing.
[BTW, this detail also makes it very hard to believe someone independent would strike deals to smuggle T-80s into Iraq - the Iraqi military was too cheap even for T-72, their best forces couldn't learn to use such an advanced piece.]


Seeing as the T-90 is just a rebranded T-72, that would be 60s and early 70s design by your own measure...
Aye it's the electronics that are really the best feature. Very useful.
T-90 is to T-72 what Merkava Mk.4 is to Merkava Mk.1 - it's based on an upgraded T-72B, then pretty much everything apart from the hull is new.
Still, of course, it's more like a modern medium tank as opposed to heavy M1, so wouldn't stand up against it. Although the latest T-90S version appears to have electronics brought more up to date; not the best, but competitive.
Still, M1 isn't the best the West has to offer. I'd rather consider Leclerc and Type 90 the examples of latest Western design, and they also have more sensible weight. [Not the most powerful, but the most advanced.]

The Russian army gives the Gerogian police the city of Gori. As you can see our forces were there to stop looting and helped the people of Gori.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28966

Looters are supposed to be shot. Why aren't you shooting the South Ossetian looters?

;)

Looters are supposed to be shot. Why aren't you shooting the South Ossetian looters?

;)

If any looting was taking place, it would of been put to a stop.

Well, if it comes from Russia Today, it must be true! Because Russia Today isn't in any way at all the Kremlin's sockpuppet!

The Russian army gives the Gerogian police the city of Gori. As you can see our forces were there to stop looting and helped the people of Gori.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28966

All except for the fact that they didnt actually do what they said they would. The police were denied entry to Gori by the Russian Army post agreement.

Georgia early Thursday said the Russians were leaving the city, but later alleged they were bringing in additional troops. Georgian government officials who had gone into the city for the possible handover left unexpectedly around midday, followed by a checkpoint confrontation outside Gori which ended when Russian tanks sped toward the area and Georgian police quickly retreated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia_142

All except for the fact that they didnt actually do what they said they would. The police were denied entry to Gori by the Russian Army post agreement.

Georgia early Thursday said the Russians were leaving the city, but later alleged they were bringing in additional troops. Georgian government officials who had gone into the city for the possible handover left unexpectedly around midday, followed by a checkpoint confrontation outside Gori which ended when Russian tanks sped toward the area and Georgian police quickly retreated.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080814/ap_on_re_eu/georgia_russia_142

A Russian general in Gori had said Wednesday it would take at least two days to leave the city. Lavrov said troops were evacuating Georgian weapons and ammunition from a military base in Gori.---

See you need to give it time. Also if conflict is going on Gori, than our forces must be given time to put it down. To protect our soilders and the people of Gori.

You mean stealing Georgian weapons and ammunition.

Don't worry, they'll get some new stuff soon.

You mean stealing Georgian weapons and ammunition.

Don't worry, they'll get some new stuff soon.

Stealing? I wouldn't call it that.

This was a military conflict. Why would we let Georgian have weapons? They were the ones who started this war. What would happen if they try to kill more South Ossetians? How much more killing dose Mikheil Saakashvili want before South Ossetia and Abkhazia can be free and safe?

A Russian general in Gori had said Wednesday it would take at least two days to leave the city. Lavrov said troops were evacuating Georgian weapons and ammunition from a military base in Gori.---

See you need to give it time. Also if conflict is going on Gori, than our forces must be given time to put it down.

Funny it sure didnt take then 2 days to go into the city, how do you figure it will take 2 days to leave? You get in your truck and drive, you can probably do it in 15 minutes.

To protect our soilders and the people of Gori.

To protect the people of Gori from who exactly?

They are free from the looks of it.

Why is it Russia moans about US/UK foriegn policy and yet when they invade another nation they get upset at the same response?

Stealing? I wouldn't call it that.

This was a military conflict. Why would we let Georgian have weapons? They were the ones who started this war. What would happen if they try to kill more South Ossetians? How much more killing dose Mikheil Saakashvili want before South Ossetia and Abkhazia can be free and safe?

So your solution is to invade and permenantly occupy Georgia, you know, just to keep them from getting new weapons? If your not saying thats a justification then how is it so for what they are doing now?

Why is it Russia moans about US/UK foriegn policy and yet when they invade another nation they get upset at the same response?
Why is it US/UK/whoever else moan about USSR/Russia/whoever else foreign policy, and yet when they invade another nation they get upset at the same response?

It's something everyone does.

They are free from the looks of it.

Why is it Russia moans about US/UK foriegn policy and yet when they invade another nation they get upset at the same response?

I find it funny the west moans Georgia as being the victom. When they started this war by killing Russian peacekeepers. I find it funny no one cares how many South Ossetians or Russians have been killed and yet the west supports their puppet Saakashvili. We warned Georgia not to use military force and they did. We warned them we would have to protect our people and we did. They killed Russian peacekeepers that were put there by the UN before Russia even got in this conflict. Yet, Putin is seen as the war crinmal here (hes not even our leader, hes PM) when Saakashvili started this conflict.

So your solution is to invade and permenantly occupy Georgia, you know, just to keep them from getting new weapons? If your not saying thats a justification then how is it so for what they are doing now?

Your mis-informed, we arn't permenantly occuping their country, hell we arn't even in their captail. We should be though, so we can capture Saakashvili.

Actually this started when the Ossetians fired at Georgia first. Then Georgia invaded. This has been going on since before last week. Your peacekeepers are crap. Next time, tell them to actually do their job rather than sit around drinking Vodka dreaming of being Spetsnaz fighters.

Putin is a puppet master. Dimtri should get rid of him. Far too dangerous to be left around.

How much more killing dose Mikheil Saakashvili want before South Ossetia and Abkhazia can be free and safe?

I don't know about Ossetia, but the idea of Abkhazia being allowed to parade itself as an independent republic is a travesty, and I hope their sovereignty remains unrecognised.

Imagine if the Cornish started conducting ethnic cleansing of the English in Cornwall, and then declared themselves an independent republic. The UK government would promptly restore its authority, and nobody would argue.

The only difference is that Georgia does not have the military capability to enforce its territorial integrity, especially not with constant Russian interference. The Russians have been undermining Georgian sovereignty since the cold war ended, and this latest episode just looks like their last chance at a sucker punch before Georgia joins NATO.

I find it funny the west moans Georgia as being the victom. When they started this war by killing Russian peacekeepers. I find it funny no one cares how many South Ossetians or Russians have been killed and yet the west supports their puppet Saakashvili. We warned Georgia not to use military force and they did. We warned them we would have to protect our people and we did. They killed Russian peacekeepers that were put there by the UN before Russia even got in this conflict. Yet, Putin is seen as the war crinmal here (hes not even our leader, hes PM) when Saakashvili started this conflict.

Georgia was the agressor and was stupid to do what they did, against US advice. However, no matter how you color it, it doesnt give Russia the green light to then do whatever it feels like. Russia could have come off intenationally looking golden if they had defended the territories and left it at that. Instead they are coming off as a greedy spiteful bully who is trying to take advantage of a situation and is unilaterally making an international crisis far worse then it was already.

Actually this started when the Ossetians fired at Georgia first. Then Georgia invaded. This has been going on since before last week. Your peacekeepers are crap. Next time, tell them to actually do their job rather than sit around drinking Vodka dreaming of being Spetsnaz fighters.

Putin is a puppet master. Dimtri should get rid of him. Far too dangerous to be left around.

ha you made me laugh.

Georgia fired at the Ossetians first. Our soilders are crap? Or as good as western soilders and better. Georgian soilders should not follow orders that will make them killers. I feel sorry for them. Disobey their leader and face punishment or kill South Ossetains and Russian peacekeepers and become killers.

Putin and Dimtri were good friends for a long time, they both agree on this issue.

Georgia was the agressor and was stupid to do what they did, against US advice. However, no matter how you color it, it doesnt give Russia the green light to then do whatever it feels like. Russia could have come off intenationally looking golden if they had defended the territories and left it at that. Instead they are coming off as a greedy spiteful bully who is trying to take advantage of a situation and is unilaterally making an international crisis far worse then it was already.

Georgia must pay for its crimes. Our military has done that and destoryed the Gerogian military, so that a crisis like this dose not happen. Their agression must not go unanswered. If the west won't help than we will do it ourselfs.

Your mis-informed, we arn't permenantly occuping their country, hell we arn't even in their captail. We should be though, so we can capture Saakashvili.

I didnt say they were permenantly occupied, i asked if you would justify permenent occupation to prevent Georgians from getting new weapons in the same way that you are justifying temporary occupation because they want to destroy Georgian weapons in thier own Capital city.

Georgia must pay for its crimes. Our military has done that and destoryed the Gerogian military, so that a crisis like this dose not happen. Their agression must not go unanswered. If the west won't help than we will do it ourselfs.

And what crime has Ukraine commited against Russia that Russia will decide to address next? And so on and so on..

And who elected Russia as the punisher of Georgian crimes?

I didnt say they were permenantly occupied, i asked if you would justify permenent occupation to prevent Georgians from getting new weapons in the same way that you are justifying temporary occupation because they want to destroy Georgian weapons in thier own Capital city.
i
I not sure if I get the 2nd part of your question, but I will try to answer.

There no need to justify permenent occupation since we are not. As for the Georgian captail we are not inside it. However I would support a move to go in and take Saakashvili to make him pay for his crimes.

And what crime has Ukraine commited against Russia that Russia will decide to address next? And so on and so on..

And who elected Russia as the punisher of Georgian crimes?

Who elected America to punish Saddam Hussian?

Countires have the duty to protect people.

The Georgians will fight to the death if you invade Tiblisi. I wouldn't try it. Not unless you want to commit genocide.

The Georgians will fight to the death if you invade Tiblisi. I wouldn't try it. Not unless you want to commit genocide.

Saakashvili has already tried to commit genocide and we put that to the stop. Also I didn't say we are going to, I am just saying I would be in full support for that action. However, we should give the gerogians time to flee if we were to do that.

They won't flee. It'll be a fight to the death. They'd probably rather blow the city up with you in it than surrender.

And you'll have more blood on your hands then Saakashvili does.

Who elected America to punish Saddam Hussian?


I think it had something to do with a violation of about 17 UN resolutions. Did Russia attempt to solve the problem diplomatically first or did they go right to armed invasion?

I think it had something to do with a violation of about 17 UN resolutions. Did Russia attempt to solve the problem diplomatically first or did they go right to armed invasion?

If we tried to solve the problem diplomatically it would be at the cost of South Ossetians lives and Russian peacekeepers were already killed and warnings were given out. Action, military action must of been used to stop Georgia.

If we tried to solve the problem diplomatically it would be at the cost of South Ossetians lives and Russian peacekeepers were already killed and warnings were given out. Action, military action must of been used to stop Georgia.

So let me get this straight, diplomacy would have caused more people to be killed but rolling thru a foreign country with tanks and armies and shelling civilian cities wouldnt result in a death or two that couldnt have been better avoided?

If we tried to solve the problem diplomatically it would be at the cost of South Ossetians lives and Russian peacekeepers were already killed and warnings were given out. Action, military action must of been used to stop Georgia.

oh? So using same reason we can claim that if EU and NATO uses diplomacy to solve the problem it would be at the cost of Georgians, plus warnings were given out. So A.C.T.I.O.N. must be used to stop Russia? :rolleyes:

p.s.: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAH SORRY! I missed the fact that the author of this comment is the omni-potent all-knowing all-perfect mister Russian guy who has "A LAPTOP" and is on the peak of economic greatness. I deeply apologize.