NationStates Jolt Archive

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?

Yes. Georgian enthic cleansing would have been going on right now if it wasnt for us. Also Georgia targeted civillan targets. We were targeting military targets.

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.

NATO is a western tool. We are the victoms here.

PS: Your forgiven(idk how to spell it). See? We are forgiving people!

Yes. Georgian enthic cleansing would have been going on right now if it wasnt for us. Also Georgia targeted civillan targets. We were targeting military targets.

The same with Saddam, yet we didnt air drop in Marines that afternoon just because we felt like it, we went thu the UN process to punish such actions, unlike the Russians who have just gone Cowboy and Indians, judge jury and executioner.

Soviet, you've yet to prove anything even resembling proof of any sort of Georgian ethnic cleansing. You are no longer allowed to post about it. If you're so completely incapable of following even the most basic elements of a structured debate, then perhaps this website is a bit beyond your intellectual capabilities. May I suggest you retreat to a nice Russian website, where you can talk with other Russians and pat one another on the back about how great and magnaminous and generous and kind and peaceful and always, always morally correct Mother Russia is?

NATO is a western tool. We are the victoms here.

PS: Your forgiven(idk how to spell it). See? We are forgiving people!

You are the victims here? Oh? And how is that? Oh, let me guess ! Its because someone killed your soldier! Is it one soldier? Yeah, I think so. So now you threw in thousands of soldiers and provoked more deaths - yours and georgians and south ossetians. So who is the victim now and who is the aggressor?

Ah but your Russian way of doing things doesn't involve diplomacy at all! Strange someone even mentioned it when talking about Russians. Oh yeah. Just for your information - wouldn't it be much easier if you were just to ask those people that killed your soldier to have a fair trial according to international laws and AVOID THE F***ING MASS MURDERING !?

p.s.: So strange when Russians moarn one death but apply problem solving strategy with a famous philosophy "Russia has plenty of human beings and they are just a piece of crap, disposable and expendable"

p.p.s.: Western tool or not, EU and NATO has a right to express its concern on international issues. So using your brilliant way of dealing with problems we would have to send a bunch of tanks and lots of bombs to bomb our way through your soldiers and get you a message: "Please, don't act as idiots, if its even possible to you"

Soviet, you've yet to prove anything even resembling proof of any sort of Georgian ethnic cleansing. You are no longer allowed to post about it. If you're so completely incapable of following even the most basic elements of a structured debate, then perhaps this website is a bit beyond your intellectual capabilities. May I suggest you retreat to a nice Russian website, where you can talk with other Russians and pat one another on the back about how great and magnaminous and generous and kind and peaceful and always, always morally correct Mother Russia is?

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1930064&Language=en

proof, Minister Sergei Lavrov already confirmed it.

You are the victims here? Oh? And how is that? Oh, let me guess ! Its because someone killed your soldier! Is it one soldier? Yeah, I think so. So now you threw in thousands of soldiers and provoked more deaths - yours and georgians and south ossetians. So who is the victim now and who is the aggressor?

Ah but your Russian way of doing things doesn't involve diplomacy at all! Strange someone even mentioned it when talking about Russians. Oh yeah. Just for your information - wouldn't it be much easier if you were just to ask those people that killed your soldier to have a fair trial according to international laws and AVOID THE F***ING MASS MURDERING !?

p.s.: So strange when Russians moar one death but apply problem solving strategy with a famous philosophy "Russia has plenty of human beings and they are just a piece of crap, disposable and expendable"


Worng. over 10 peacekeepers were killed and Georgian forces have caused the deaths of close to 2000 people in South Ossetia. Our forces are cheered as they came in, do you know why? We are protecting them and freeng them as they should of been in 1992.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1930064&Language=en

proof, Minister Sergei Lavrov already confirmed it.

Read: This gives Russia carte blanch do to whatever we want to whoever we want whenever we want. We have never heard of any other method to settle issues with other countries except armed invasion right off the bat.(of course this only applies to Countries we can bully)

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1930064&Language=en

proof, Minister Sergei Lavrov already confirmed it.

It's true because we say so? I'm sorry, perhaps you're not familiar with the word proof. In English, to prove something means to establish the truth or existence of something by providing evidence or argument. Saying "it's happening because we say it is happening" is not proof. Hell, the fact that it's not being proven is implicit in the choice of the verb "accuse" in the very first sentence of your own article.

By your stringent definition of proof, I can say that Russia has ethnically cleansed both Ossetians AND Georgians because I say so. That's the burden of proof that you seem to think you're beholden to, so that's the burden of proof I shall meet.

Worng. over 10 peacekeepers were killed and Georgian forces have caused the deaths of close to 2000 people in South Ossetia. Our forces are cheered as they came in, do you know why? We are protecting them and freeng them as they should of been in 1992.

oh im sorry. if its ten then its absolutely logical why you sent thousands of soldiers to Georgia, isn't it?

Oh yeah... speaking about your "protection"... I think I've seen that... Just so sad that all "protected" people vanished from existence, probably went on permanent vacations. ;)

See, I told you we should have dismantled Russia at the end of WWII. All it's done has caused us misery and fear of Armageddon.

You told who? Roosevelt and Churchill?

See, I told you we should have dismantled Russia at the end of WWII. All it's done has caused us misery and fear of Armageddon.

That country is not even worth a single attention of any intelligent human being, because probably nothing in it has anything intelligent. All they managed to do over their wast history is to screw up with everybody around them and inside their country as well.

See, I told you we should have dismantled Russia at the end of WWII. All it's done has caused us misery and fear of Armageddon.

Than we should dismantle the goverment of Georgia, it has brought fear to South Ossetia.

That country is not even worth a single attention of any intelligent human being, because probably nothing in it has anything intelligent. All they managed to do over their wast history is to screw up with everybody around them and inside their country as well.

All they managed to do over their wast history is to screw up with everybody around them and inside their country as well.

their wast history

wast

Chekov pun intended?

Chekov pun intended?

Or the poster is actually Barbra Walters

That country is not even worth a single attention of any intelligent human being, because probably nothing in it has anything intelligent. All they managed to do over their wast history is to screw up with everybody around them and inside their country as well.

What country are you talking about? You cant be talking about Russia.

Chekov pun intended?

vast. Sorry.

You told who? Roosevelt and Churchill?

Oh I dunno. These grumpy old men all look the same. He had a yardbrush style moustache if I remember correctly........I never got why the dude was so angry about what I said :(


Than we should dismantle the goverment of Georgia, it has brought fear to South Ossetia.

That's a pissing hole compared to the fear of global nuclear destruction caused by the so called "Heroes of the Soviet Union" and the Russian Federation.

Oh I dunno. These grumpy old men all look the same. He had a yardbrush style moustache if I remember correctly........I never got why the dude was so angry about what I said :(




That's a pissing hole compared to the fear of global nuclear destruction caused by the so called "Heroes of the Soviet Union" and the Russian Federation.

The great freedom bringers are blamed for that. Sticking its military where it should just stay out of. This world would be a better place if the west would jsut stop. Stay in your own area for gods sake.

Or the poster is actually Barbra Walters

I prefer the Chekov theory due to the Russian tie-in.

The great freedom bringers are blamed for that. Sticking its military where it should just stay out of. This world would be a better place if the west would jsut stop. Stay in your own area for gods sake.

Yet the West continues to grow and Socialsim continues to collapse. Russia and China need guns and armies to keep thier own population under control. What does that tell you about how great the World would be under Socialist regimes.

The West is a product, and its a product that everyone seems to like, even the people not allowed to buy it.

http://www.kuna.net.kw/NewsAgenciesPublicSite/ArticleDetails.aspx?id=1930064&Language=en

proof, Minister Sergei Lavrov already confirmed it.

What a joke. If that's sufficient proof, then I guess there must be WMDs in Iraq after all.

Yet the West continues to grow and Socialsim continues to collapse. Russia and China need guns and armies to keep thier own population under control. What does that tell you about how great the World would be under Socialist regimes.

The West is a product, and its a product that everyone seems to like, even the people not allowed to buy it.

I don't see an army here to keep me ''under control''. We are no longer Socialist. We have all the major freedoms just like the rest of the world. I can say what I want and do what I want. Seems to me people in my part of the world don't like the western imperialism.

What a joke. If that's sufficient proof, then I guess there must be WMDs in Iraq after all.

Sorry but my goverment dosent feed me lies, sadly the west dose I gusse.

Sorry but my goverment dosent feed me lies, sadly the west dose I gusse.

Russians ethnically cleansed South Ossetians and Georgians. I hear up to 100,000 dead at the hands of Russian death squads.

Russians ethnically cleansed South Ossetians and Georgians. I hear up to 100,000 dead at the hands of Russian death squads.

Please...

Many South Ossetians are our people. Also our men would never comply if orders to kill like that.

Apparently they've sent POW's to the Gulag.

Please...

Many South Ossetians are our people. Also our men would never comply if orders to kill like that.

Yeah, Russians have NEVER killed other Russians before. Nope, never. Especially not when Stalin was in control. Not a once.

Death count is up to 150,000. All women and children.

Please...

Many South Ossetians are our people. Also our men would never comply if orders to kill like that.

Shall i list an encyclopedias worth of Russian War attrocities in thier history?

Sorry but my goverment dosent feed me lies

I think the inanity of this thread has now reached critical mass.

Yeah, Russians have NEVER killed other Russians before. Nope, never. Especially not when Stalin was in control. Not a once.

Death count is up to 150,000. All women and children.

Thats differnet.

I think the inanity of this thread has now reached critical mass.

Yea i couldnt keep a straight face after that one either. Russia lie? Thats just crazy talk!

Proof important to you on enthic cleansing? Tell that to Saakashvili.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/11/Georgia_accuses_Russia_of_ethnic_cleansing/UPI-47871218461644/

there we are even.

Proof important to you on enthic cleansing? Tell that to Saakashvili.

http://www.upi.com/Top_News/2008/08/11/Georgia_accuses_Russia_of_ethnic_cleansing/UPI-47871218461644/

there we are even.

Wrong. We're not even. That's clearly a piece of Russian propaganda.

Soviet KLM Empire what does the term disproportionate responce mean to you? And how do you think that term could be best applied in this situation? (This should be fun)

Wrong. We're not even. That's clearly a piece of Russian propaganda.

He went on CNN and said it himself. CNN Russian propaganda?

Soviet KLM Empire what does the term disproportionate responce mean to you? And how do you think that term could be best applied in this situation? (This should be fun)

I don't know the word disproportionate.

I don't know the word disproportionate.

Apparently either do your fellow Russians.

Apparently either do your fellow Russians.

What dose it mean?

Here's another Russian weapon system I am able to identify

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/pro-kremlin-sup.html

The West is a product, and its a product that everyone seems to like, even the people not allowed to buy it.

The West isn't a product. It's a sugar coated gun to other people's heads to hand over all their worldly goods. Just like every single trans-national ideological grouping, doesn't matter what flavor they call it. I'd rather not have to pay for the privilege of being screwed over, thank you.

What dose it mean?

It means to overreact to a situation or to react in a way not equal to the original action.

For example a disproportinate reaction would be to shoot someone in the head if they stepped on your toe.

Here's another Russian weapon system I am able to identify

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/pro-kremlin-sup.html

Just can't identify our tanks can you?

It means to overreact to a situation or to react in a way not equal to the original action.

For example a disproportinate reaction would be to shoot someone in the head if they stepped on your toe.

But clearly the person started the conflict by stepping on your toe! That is an act of war! Duh.:rolleyes:

Really though, they killed Russian peacekeepers and Ossetains and had to be punished. We only went after military targets.

The West isn't a product. It's a sugar coated gun to other people's heads to hand over all their worldly goods.

Is that why third world countries have homes with sattelite dishes popping up like weeds all over the planet, with most watching Western programing, often even breaking the law to do so? Just to get the opportunity for western exposure? Nobody wants Russian designer dresses, no matter how hot they think burlap bags are. It must not be that they like it enough to be willing to risk it, its because they are being forced to with a sugar coated gun.

This just in!



US defence chief Robert Gates has said he sees no prospect of using US military force in Georgia, following its week-long conflict with Russia.

But he warned that US-Russia relations could be adversely affected for years as a result of Moscow's actions.

His words came as Russia's foreign minister said Georgia would not regain control of the breakaway region of South Ossetia at the heart of the row.

Meanwhile, Russia has begun handing back the town of Gori to the Georgians.

However, a Russian general in the area said Moscow's troops would remain nearby for several days to remove weaponry and help restore law and order in Gori, which lies some 15km (10 miles) from South Ossetia.

Despite concerns that Moscow may not be keen quickly to leave Georgian territory, Mr Gates said the Russians did seem to be pulling back.

"They appear to be withdrawing their forces back towards Abkhazia and to the zone of conflict... towards South Ossetia," he said.

Georgia attacked the rebel region of South Ossetia from Gori a week ago, prompting Russian retaliation.

Both sides agreed to a ceasefire on Tuesday, amid international concern, but it has seemed fragile so far.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7561586.stm

He went on CNN and said it himself. CNN Russian propaganda?

Sure. Your arguments have stopped making sense. Why should mine continue?

Face it. You CAN'T PROVE ethnic cleansing allegations. That's all they are; allegations. Until there are independent sources verifying, or Russia/Georgia comes up with some seriously incontrovertible evidence, all it is is political posturing.

I reckon KLM isn't even Russian. Can we get an IP check?

Just can't identify our tanks can you?

I sure can. I noticed you couldn't identify the piece of Russian equipment in the other thread.

Sure. Your arguments have stopped making sense. Why should mine continue?

Face it. You CAN'T PROVE ethnic cleansing allegations. That's all they are; allegations. Until there are independent sources verifying, or Russia/Georgia comes up with some seriously incontrovertible evidence, all it is is political posturing.

fine. I will stop posting about ethnic cleasning allegations.

Is that why third world countries have homes with sattelite dishes popping up like weeds all over the planet, with most watching Western programing, often even breaking the law to do so? Just to get the opportunity for western exposure? It must not be that they like it enough to be willing to risk it, its because they are being forced to with a sugar coated gun.

A common deflection attempt. Using cheap comparison tactics of consumer good demand as a measure of "good" being done.

The sugar coated gun is typically along the lines of "relax your tariffs on our super cheap grain, or we'll put trade embargoes on you" and then walking away when the local agricultural base collapses, causing starvation when the country goes through a hard time. It doesn't have to be grain, could be anything else they have an advantage over, even if its just having more bribe money.

Another one of the favorites is destabilizing countries they don't like, or just taking them over outright. 300 years of Western expansion and subjugation don't just vanish overnight, even if they like to pretend they stopped it 50 years ago, especially since they haven't stopped sending soldiers to wreck countries in the name of "Westocracy".

And of course, who can ever forget the RIAA and MPAA, non governmental organizations, threatening other countries with thinly veiled sanctions, if they didn't comply with their rules. Remember the case with piratebay?

Meh, it's not like superpowers in other eras behaved differently. They screwed up smaller countries to feed themselves, and patted themselves on the backs for it.

fine. I will stop posting about ethnic cleasning allegations.

Good. Thank you. And if, later on, authentic pictures of mass graves or something surfaces, I will concede the point to you.

Good. Thank you. And if, later on, authentic pictures of mass graves or something surfaces, I will concede the point to you.

As long as they aren't Photoshopped.

Here's another Russian weapon system I am able to identify

http://blog.wired.com/defense/2008/05/pro-kremlin-sup.html


I'd have a lot more respect for Kasparov if I hadn't heard he actually believes in Fomenko's New Chronology, which has to be the stupidest theory in the history of pseudoscience.

I sure can. I noticed you couldn't identify the piece of Russian equipment in the other thread.

Seeing how you can not show pictures are even one source that T-80s were sold to Iraq how did iraq get them. Why dose every source not list even 1 T-80 shipped or used to and by Iraq? Planty of T-72 models, no T-80s.

I'd have a lot more respect for Kasparov if I hadn't heard he actually believes in Fomenko's New Chronology, which has to be the stupidest theory in the history of pseudoscience.

I just read about it on Wikipedia. It sounds like a lot of imperalist kokugaku bullshit to me.

"Basically, the Mongols were the ancestors of the modern Russians, and ruled all of the world, including America, in ancient times... all other history is a fucking lie"

The sugar coated gun is typically along the lines of "relax your tariffs on our super cheap grain, or we'll put trade embargoes on you" and then walking away when the local agricultural base collapses, causing starvation when the country goes through a hard time. It doesn't have to be grain, could be anything else they have an advantage over, even if its just having more bribe money.


LOL Have you ever actually looked at the US trade imbalance? And they call it an imbalance for a reason. Guess on what side its imbalanced on?

Seeing how you can not show pictures are even one source that T-80s were sold to Iraq how did iraq get them. Why dose every source not list even 1 T-80 shipped or used to and by Iraq? Planty of T-72 models, no T-80s.

I'm sorry if you don't believe me. The Ukrainians sold them to Iraq.

Interestingly, they had diesel engines instead of gas turbines.

Oh, and I'm sure that Russia and Ukraine publish their sales registers for their arms, right?

I'm sorry if you don't believe me. The Ukrainians sold them to Iraq.

Interestingly, they had diesel engines instead of gas turbines.

Oh, and I'm sure that Russia and Ukraine publish their sales registers for their arms, right?

True not all arm sales are public.

Still if there was T-80s there it would be found out.

LOL Have you ever actually looked at the US trade imbalance? And they call it an imbalance for a reason. Guess on what side its imbalanced on?

I said West, not America. Were you not paying attention?

True not all arm sales are public.

Still if there was T-80s there it would be found out.

Having seen how ROSOBORON does business, I don't believe that for a second.

As long as they aren't Photoshopped.

Yes, I felt the word "authentic" implied that.

I said West, not America. Were you not paying attention?

I see so you meant the West minus the country that almost defines the West. Gotcha.

Thats much like saying i meant Europe, well except for England Germany Spain and France.

I see so you meant the West minus the country that almost defines the West. Gotcha.

When I say west I think more western Europe.

When I say west I think more western Europe.

People arnt mounting sattelite dishes in Iran to watch Spanish TV.

When I say west I think more western Europe.

Ah, according to your revanchist historian, that's just "More Of Russia".

Ah, according to your revanchist historian, that's just "More Of Russia".

How do you get that?

When America talks about the ME, its more like their sand box to do as they please right?

I see so you meant the West minus the country that almost defines the West. Gotcha.

Thats much like saying i meant Europe, well except for England Germany Spain and France.

America is solely not the West. It would also include just about all of Europe. All have done their share of quashing nations less capable of standing up to them so as to strip resources for their gain. Are you going to deny that actually happened, and is still happening?

And I note you still cling to the fallacy of using consumer demand as a means of indicating popularity with the ideology itself.

And I note you still cling to the fallacy of using consumer demand as a means of indicating popularity with the ideology itself.

I would argue the two are inseperable. The right to work, and to make your own money without undue taxation, the right to conduct business with minimal regulation, and the right to make your own free choices on how to spend it, inevitably leads to a consumer ideology. Even China is finally just starting to figure this out.

How do you get that?

When America talks about the ME, its more like their sand box to do as they please right?

Fomenko's New Chronology, very popular in Russia.

At least we don't rewrite our schoolbooks to say that "There was no past prior to the 1600s, and all other history books are forgeries. The truth is that Americans ruled the world prior to that date, and from time immemorial..."

Like I said, many Russians believe Fomenko's kokugaku horseshit.

Fomenko's New Chronology, very popular in Russia.

At least we don't rewrite our schoolbooks to say that "There was no past prior to the 1600s, and all other history books are forgeries. The truth is that Americans ruled the world prior to that date, and from time immemorial..."

Like I said, many Russians believe Fomenko's kokugaku horseshit.

Bull. I don't care how many people belive in it. You can't say I do without asking me.

America rule the world? ha joke right?

I'm sorry if you don't believe me. The Ukrainians sold them to Iraq.

Interestingly, they had diesel engines instead of gas turbines.

Oh, and I'm sure that Russia and Ukraine publish their sales registers for their arms, right?

But that Iraqi regime they sold them to (allegedly) has been overthrown, its papers seized and army destroyed. So why, between the indirect evidence of paperwork, and the direct evidence of a fucking tank, does nobody but nobody but you maintain it occurred?

Bull. I don't care how many people belive in it. You can't say I do without asking me.

America rule the world? ha joke right?

If you'd read his post you'd have seen he said at least we don't rewrite our books to say America rules the world.

This proves how misleading CNN can be at times.

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

You've posted that before, and it's not like Russia Today isn't biased.

You've posted that before, and it's not like Russia Today isn't biased.

Thier slogan? : Russia Today, Georgia Tomorrow!

Thier slogan? : Russia Today, Georgia Tomorrow!

LolageROFLcopter

You've posted that before, and it's not like Russia Today isn't biased.

No, thats new.

Oh and like CNN isnt? Or other western media?

No, thats new.

Oh and like CNN isnt? Or other western media?

I'd imagine western media is less biased on the issue than Russian or Georgian media, since it isn't, y'know, directly under the control of one of the combatants.

I'd imagine western media is less biased on the issue than Russian or Georgian media, since it isn't, y'know, directly under the control of one of the combatants.

No but the west seems like it is out to picture us badly. I looked at CNN veido clips. All the headlines say ''Russia invades'' or "Russia attacks'' or ''Russian tanks roll in Georgia'' just by looking at it you might think ''Shit, the Soviet Union is back! Damn reds! World War 3 here we come...''

No but the west seems like it is out to picture us badly. I looked at CNN veido clips. All the headlines say ''Russia invades'' or "Russia attacks'' or ''Russian tanks roll in Georgia'' just by looking at it you might think ''Shit, the Soviet Union is back! Damn reds! World War 3 here we come...''

Russia is hardly likely to look good beating up on a tiny country that can't even control its own territory, let alone threaten anyone else's. Kind of like how international opinion of America has fallen since the invasion of Iraq.

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?
Ah so that's the justification for destroying their coast guard.

Dicks, the whole lot of you are nothing more than a bunch of dicks. Your military is just pissed that the Georgian military is smart enough not to engage you in a one sided battle.

Is George Bush running Russia too?

I just heard someone, I think the US Defense Secretary, saying basically that if Russia left, the US would have no need to send troops. The implication being that if Russia did not leave, as appears to be the case, America might send troops.

Given that war with Russia would likely go nuclear, I have come to two conclusion. If America shows any sign of sending combat troops (humanitarian personel have already been sent), anyone who can should get away from areas with urban developement, millitary bases, or heavy industrialization, as these will be prime targets. If possible get out of the Northern Hemispere, as all confirmed nuclear powers are in the Northern Hemisphere, and weather/atmospheric patterns might limmit the fallout in the Southern Hemisphere. Secondly, it is time Congress upheld its moral and legal duty, and issued warrents for the Bush Administration to compel them to testify. Hold them in contempt of Congress. If the Justice Department refuses to do its duty, ask the armed forces to do it. I'd rather risk a civil war than a nuclear world war.

Perhaps I sound like a radical or traitor. I'm not. I simply believe that if it became clear that Bush was, in effect, intending to start World War 3, the devistation that would entail(effectively making him the greatest mass-murderer in history) would justify removing him with the least ammount of force nessissary.

I bet you $6.01 that if we threatened Russia with any military action at all, they would retreat after blowing a little steam.

No, thats new.

Oh and like CNN isnt? Or other western media?
After some hundreds of pages, it's starting to show!

Now, correct me if I'm wrong...
It seems to me that You are saying that it is Georgia (and Georgia ALONE) to blame.

And... and AND Russia is not to be blamed AT ALL!

Just say when I'm close. I'm psychic, you see...




Something, which I can't quite get, is bad to you.... is it North?!?

For the sake of honesty, I will clarify that I beleive that Congress should have pushed for Bush's arrest a long time ago. I say this because I believe that the law should be enforced regardless of partisan politics, and because Congress is charged with upholding the Constitution if the President violates it. America was also founded in part on the notion that the people have a right to resist the rule of an abusive government that violates their rights, and Congress, as representatives of the people, have a moral responsibillity as well as a legal right to remove the current President.

The risk of Bush starting a nuclear world war just adds impetus to the need to do something that should hve been done months or years ago.

I bet you $6.01 that if we threatened Russia with any military action at all, they would retreat after blowing a little steam.

One can only hope. The problem is that in that kind of situation, one misstep, one accidental incident, can push things over the edge. Imaging Bush handeling the Cuban Missle Crisis. Don't you just get chills at the thought;)?

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.

I did say able to. I didn't say we actually do.

And we are able to, if we would actually do it.

I would argue the two are inseperable. The right to work, and to make your own money without undue taxation, the right to conduct business with minimal regulation, and the right to make your own free choices on how to spend it, inevitably leads to a consumer ideology. Even China is finally just starting to figure this out.

None of this has anything to do with the "West". Laissez-faire has been around longer than there has been a "West".

Since when?

A Russian autoloader takes 7 seconds to load a round. A decent crew can do it in under 4 seconds.

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?

I was in Iraq in 2003 and can confirm that the DU APFSDS 25mm round is capable of penetrating the front slope of the Iraqi version of the T-72. I encountered quite a few T-72s with just such damage done to them. Not only that I saw some that were damaged (not penetrated but damaged) by .50 APIT rounds to the sides and rear.

As for the 25mm, on the destroyed tanks I saw not all rounds penetrated but a number of them did.

Do keep in mind that the export version of the T-72 that the Iraqis had were complete and utter junk. The Russian version is far superior in just about every single way.

1956: Tiny little country called Hungary, inside the Russian (Soviet) sphere. A revolution breaks out, and the USSR loses influence. Hungary calls for foreign aid, west does little, Russia regains authority through military means.

1968: Czechoslovakia is firmly under Russian domination, but a spring of liberalization in politics and culture pulls them out of the Soviet sphere. Czechoslovakia calls for help from the west, and Russian tanks roll through Prague. West does nothing.

2008: Eensy Weensy little Georgia used to be under Russian influence, but has strayed and gotten close to the west. Russia looks to correct this imbalance. Georgia calls for aid, their pleas go unanswered. Russia dominates the nation.

Notice a common link between the three? Oh...yeah...the almighty West doesn't really have as much influence over Russia as we like to think.

A Russian autoloader takes 7 seconds to load a round. A decent crew can do it in under 4 seconds.


IIRC, the only reason the Russians (among others) put an Autoloader in is to reduce crewing requirements. More about that old russian strategy of zergrushing the west with oodles of tanks.

1956: Tiny little country called Hungary, inside the Russian (Soviet) sphere. A revolution breaks out, and the USSR loses influence. Hungary calls for foreign aid, west does little, Russia regains authority through military means.

1968: Czechoslovakia is firmly under Russian domination, but a spring of liberalization in politics and culture pulls them out of the Soviet sphere. Czechoslovakia calls for help from the west, and Russian tanks roll through Prague. West does nothing.

2008: Eensy Weensy little Georgia used to be under Russian influence, but has strayed and gotten close to the west. Russia looks to correct this imbalance. Georgia calls for aid, their pleas go unanswered. Russia dominates the nation.

Notice a common link between the three? Oh...yeah...the almighty West doesn't really have as much influence over Russia as we like to think.

Of course the West has little influence. Russia is a nuclear power with lots of oil that Europe needs and a lot of anti-US nationalism.

The problem is that some leaders may think the West can or should influence the situation, and thereby escallate it.

A Russian autoloader takes 7 seconds to load a round. A decent crew can do it in under 4 seconds.


A human autoloader gets tired and slows down though. A mechanical autoloader doesn't. And there's the whole weight savings thing. You don't need to create extra crewspace for the loader, allowing for a smaller turret size, which means more weight allowed for armor or what have you.

It's a trade off between a higher initial rate of fire against longer load time reliability and weight savings.

Found a site with a collection if images of the current war front between Georgia and Russia. Be warned, much gruesomeness.

http://www.navoine.ru/forum/viewtopic.php?p=551

It's a trade off between a higher initial rate of fire against longer load time reliability and weight savings.

Exactly. Most US equipment is designed to be ideal for quick, decisive engagements, generally at night. Compare the maintenance required for the M4 and AK-47. Most American weapons have optic devices and aiming aids (CCO, PEQ-2, PVS-14, PAS-13, etc.) which are great and all, but when the batteries run out, especially on the thermals as I could barely get through table 8 HMMWV gunnery on one set of batteries.

One thing I don't know about Russian tanks, is it possible to manually load the rounds? My biggest fear with an autoloader is hearing a loud "clunk" from inside the mechanism and have it not work anymore in the middle of a firefight.

Be warned, much gruesomeness.

Indeed, probably not appropriate for this forum.

Exactly. Most US equipment is designed to be ideal for quick, decisive engagements, generally at night. Compare the maintenance required for the M4 and AK-47. Most American weapons have optic devices and aiming aids (CCO, PEQ-2, PVS-14, PAS-13, etc.) which are great and all, but when the batteries run out, especially on the thermals as I could barely get through table 8 HMMWV gunnery on one set of batteries.

One thing I don't know about Russian tanks, is it possible to manually load the rounds? My biggest fear with an autoloader is hearing a loud "clunk" from inside the mechanism and have it not work anymore in the middle of a firefight.

On the other hand, the EOTech batteries seem to last forever on my M-4, and they give a radical advantage over the AK-47 or AK-74 sights.

You end up shooting people in the head at distances where the AK can hardly engage you.

On the other hand, the EOTech batteries seem to last forever on my M-4, and they give a radical advantage over the AK-47 or AK-74 sights.

You end up shooting people in the head at distances where the AK can hardly engage you.

Yes, the EOTech is a much better sight than the CCO. You're always having to check the knob to make sure the sight isn't on. I've got an ACOG on my M-4 so it's not an issue.

I did see a Polish troop the other day with an EOTech on his Beryl, which is of course closely related to the AK series. The Polish are taking an interesting route of putting Western improvements on Eastern equipment, for example I've heard they've outfitted their Mi-24s with the same avionics and targeting systems as the Apache.

Do keep in mind that the export version of the T-72 that the Iraqis had were complete and utter junk. The Russian version is far superior in just about every single way.
Are you sure that was the Bushmaster's 25mm bore APFSDS, with ~6mm flechette diameter? Just that the M256 (Abrams) APFSDS are just about 25mm in diameter themselves.

Otherwise that's not even the actual export version, but something closer to a mockup-copy than a real tank. IIRC the 25mm bore M919 round has 90mm penetration capability at point blank, while even export version T-72 glacis and front turret armor have been tested for 300mm RHA-equivalent against flechette threats, lower hull over 200.


One thing I don't know about Russian tanks, is it possible to manually load the rounds? My biggest fear with an autoloader is hearing a loud "clunk" from inside the mechanism and have it not work anymore in the middle of a firefight.
As far as I've heard, these things pretty much never break, as the mechanism is simple and operated with high force. The T-64 autoloader was completely different and had problems, but for T-72 they've changed the system. The rounds AIUI can be loaded manually by the gunner, in particular that refers to the additional rounds outside the autoloader.

A human autoloader gets tired and slows down though. A mechanical autoloader doesn't. And there's the whole weight savings thing. You don't need to create extra crewspace for the loader, allowing for a smaller turret size, which means more weight allowed for armor or what have you.

It's a trade off between a higher initial rate of fire against longer load time reliability and weight savings.

Depending on the tank, the Russian autoloader requires that the barrel be elevated in order to accomodate the autoloading sequence.

Not something that is conducive to firing quickly, since you'll have to reacquire the target.

Of course the West has little influence. Russia is a nuclear power with lots of oil that Europe needs and a lot of anti-US nationalism.

The problem is that some leaders may think the West can or should influence the situation, and thereby escallate it.


Stop worrying. Even if it did go nuclear there are enough systems to swat Russian missiles out of the sky if they need to.

That and the Russians aren't that stupid. Unless they willingly want to be wiped off the map along with several billion other people.

And we have no idea on how they would use them. If they fired one at a troop formation we might do the same. This is called a "limited nuclear exchange". In the book "The Third World War" this happens and the war ends. One missile was fired at Birmingham here in England, and then the US & UK fired one each back at Minsk in Russia. One missile being fired doesn't mean that we are 99% likely to have full scale Armageddon on our hands.

Depending on the tank, the Russian autoloader requires that the barrel be elevated in order to accomodate the autoloading sequence.

Not something that is conducive to firing quickly, since you'll have to reacquire the target.

I've seen artillery autoloaders, notably the AMOS, able to load at any angle. Human loaders will be faster, in the beginning. I've said as much. But fatigue does set in much faster in humans than mechanical loaders.

I've seen artillery autoloaders, notably the AMOS, able to load at any angle. Human loaders will be faster, in the beginning. I've said as much. But fatigue does set in much faster in humans than mechanical loaders.

Artillery vehicles usually have a lot more room in the turret. The T-80 has a bit more room than the typical Russian tank, but the T-72 and T-90 are about as roomy as a shoebox.

Stop worrying. Even if it did go nuclear there are enough systems to swat Russian missiles out of the sky if they need to.


Um, no.

America has only a handful of anti-missile missile bases, and few of its destroyers have full ICBM intercept capability at this moment. Russia literally has thousands of ICBMs, many of them, like the SS-19, capable of carrying MIRVs in a pinch. And let's not forget that they as the premier developer of ICBMs, their Topol-Ms are purpose built missiles designed to beat any currently existing anti-missile defense system through a combination of evasive maneuvers, EMP, radiation and laser shielding systems.

MAD is still an option.

Artillery vehicles usually have a lot more room in the turret. The T-80 has a bit more room than the typical Russian tank, but the T-72 and T-90 are about as roomy as a shoebox.

The AMOS system ships entirely as a turret package. You can put it on an APC or a tank chassis, makes no difference. This does not look very roomy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:AMV_AMOS.jpg

Are you sure that was the Bushmaster's 25mm bore APFSDS, with ~6mm flechette diameter? Just that the M256 (Abrams) APFSDS are just about 25mm in diameter themselves.

Absolutely certain. The vehicles I saw that had been engaged by the Abrams generally had only one hole in them while the ones engaged by the Bradley had numerous strikes against the armor along with a few actual penetrations.

Otherwise that's not even the actual export version, but something closer to a mockup-copy than a real tank. IIRC the 25mm bore M919 round has 90mm penetration capability at point blank, while even export version T-72 glacis and front turret armor have been tested for 300mm RHA-equivalent against flechette threats, lower hull over 200.

It's possible the Iraqis had modified their tanks in some way that reduced protection, due to lack of maintenance support or whatever. It's also possible that several strikes against the armor compromised its integrity prior to the penetrations, or that substandard materials had been used as repair parts.

Regardless, I know that I saw T-72s destroyed by 25mm APFSDS rounds. Do note that it's possible they were the Lion of Babylon models the Iraqis produced, which are claimed to be the equal of the monkey model T-72, but like just about everything else built by Iraq during the sanctions, really isn't.

As far as I've heard, these things pretty much never break, as the mechanism is simple and operated with high force. The T-64 autoloader was completely different and had problems, but for T-72 they've changed the system. The rounds AIUI can be loaded manually by the gunner, in particular that refers to the additional rounds outside the autoloader.

Ah, thanks.

Stop worrying. Even if it did go nuclear there are enough systems to swat Russian missiles out of the sky if they need to.

That and the Russians aren't that stupid. Unless they willingly want to be wiped off the map along with several billion other people.

And we have no idea on how they would use them. If they fired one at a troop formation we might do the same. This is called a "limited nuclear exchange". In the book "The Third World War" this happens and the war ends. One missile was fired at Birmingham here in England, and then the US & UK fired one each back at Minsk in Russia. One missile being fired doesn't mean that we are 99% likely to have full scale Armageddon on our hands.

There are not enough systems to stop all our missiles, your talking about thousands of nukes.

Besides no one, on both sides, wants to start firing their nukes.

There are not enough systems to stop all our missiles, your talking about thousands of nukes.

Besides no one, on both sides, wants to start firing their nukes.

The anti-ballistic missiles number 10 in total, and are meant to shoot down possible Iranian ICBMs.

Obviously, as you point out, they have no effect on Russian missiles, which are numerous.

So why does Russia care?

Here's an interesting idea:
http://67.199.86.13/newsite/crisis.jpg
That's found on my website, http://sparkofknowledge.com

I bet half those nukes have been lost during the Soviet breakup.

The anti-ballistic missiles number 10 in total, and are meant to shoot down possible Iranian ICBMs.

Obviously, as you point out, they have no effect on Russian missiles, which are numerous.

So why does Russia care?

Why dose Russia care? Not only would the west be turned to a wasteland, so would ours. We only have one missle defense system that I know of and its in Moscow.

I bet half those nukes have been lost during the Soviet breakup.

Nukes in other countries were sent to Russia or gotten rid of them.

Why dose Russia care? Not only would the west be turned to a wasteland, so would ours. We only have one missle defense system that I know of and its in Moscow.

I'm asking "Why does Russia care that 10 defensive missiles are placed in Poland, that cannot possibly affect anything that Russians might do and are NOT intended for use against Russian missiles?"

Answer the question.

I'm asking "Why does Russia care that 10 defensive missiles are placed in Poland, that cannot possibly affect anything that Russians might do and are NOT intended for use against Russian missiles?"

Answer the question.

Our trust in each other countries are lacking, not only our goverments but our people. The west and Russia will never agree on much.

I'm asking "Why does Russia care that 10 defensive missiles are placed in Poland, that cannot possibly affect anything that Russians might do and are NOT intended for use against Russian missiles?"
Because more missiles, defensive or not, are being placed on Russia's doorstep, by one of Russia's long-standing adversaries.

If Russia made a deal with, say, Cuba, to place ten defensive missiles on the island, I can't see you posting, "why does the US care?".

Because more missiles, defensive or not, are being placed on Russia's doorstep, by one of Russia's long-standing adversaries.

If Russia made a deal with, say, Cuba, to place ten defensive missiles on the island, I can't see you posting, "why does the US care?".

Offensive weapons we seem to worry about.

Defensive - we actually offered to share the technology with Russia.

Offensive weapons we seem to worry about.

Defensive - we actually offered to share the technology with Russia.
So you'd be perfectly happy with Russia placing defensive missiles on Cuba?

So you'd be perfectly happy with Russia placing defensive missiles on Cuba?

If it were only 10, yes. It would have no strategic effect.

The missiles in question are only good against incoming missiles that were launched from over 1000km away, and 10 of them might, at most, hit 10 missiles.

We have a lot more than 10 ICBMs.

If it were only 10, yes. It would have no strategic effect.

The missiles in question are only good against incoming missiles that were launched from over 1000km away, and 10 of them might, at most, hit 10 missiles.

We have a lot more than 10 ICBMs.

The question is would your goverment say the same thing?

It's possible the Iraqis had modified their tanks in some way that reduced protection, due to lack of maintenance support or whatever. It's also possible that several strikes against the armor compromised its integrity prior to the penetrations, or that substandard materials had been used as repair parts.
More likely the tanks have been built out of spare parts. And as they don't make spare hulls... well, Iraq did have the technological level to produce a replacement hull, but out of low-quality steel, and without the non-metallic elements. Thus the tanks could be effectively unarmored.

The question is would your goverment say the same thing?

Probably. Like I said, we're more concerned about real threats.

You'll notice that pumping up imaginary threats (like WMD in Iraq) didn't go over too well over here. Our people are not completely stupid.

Probably. Like I said, we're more concerned about real threats.

You'll notice that pumping up imaginary threats (like WMD in Iraq) didn't go over too well over here. Our people are not completely stupid.

Well why not put the missile deffense in the ME. Iran's Shahab 3 can only go as far as 2000km. That is not a threat to the USA. If you put it further away from Russia, all sides would be happy.

More likely the tanks have been built out of spare parts. And as they don't make spare hulls... well, Iraq did have the technological level to produce a replacement hull, but out of low-quality steel, and without the non-metallic elements. Thus the tanks could be effectively unarmored.

I was referring more to the additional plating the Iraqis made a habit of welding on to their front slopes.

Agreed on the substandard materials possibly used to build the Lion tanks. They'd be sufficient for beating up on (or at least intimidating the hell out of) Kurdish and Marsh Arab militias, less so for fighting Western tanks.

Well why not put the missile deffense in the ME. Iran's Shahab 3 can only go as far as 2000km. That is not a threat to the USA. If you put it further away from Russia, all sides would be happy.

Israel is too close for the GBI. It has to let the missile fly at least 1000km before firing at it.

And the presumed target of the Iranian missile is a European target, which they've threatened in the past to do.

One might wonder why the Iranians need a weapon that can fly all the way to Europe, when all they really need is a weapon that can reach Israel.

One might wonder why the Iranians need a weapon that can fly all the way to Europe, when all they really need is a weapon that can reach Israel.
Well, that's pretty simple. Israeli are used to being fired at, plus they're mostly Jews, and there has always been a degree of antisemitism in the world.
Hitting Europe, on the other hand, even with a non-nuclear weapon is another thing. Compare the news impact, "Jerusalem under missile attack!" and "London under missile attack!"

Israel is too close for the GBI. It has to let the missile fly at least 1000km before firing at it.

And the presumed target of the Iranian missile is a European target, which they've threatened in the past to do.

One might wonder why the Iranians need a weapon that can fly all the way to Europe, when all they really need is a weapon that can reach Israel.

They can use it as a fear tool. If they ever get nukes than it would work wonders as a fear tool.

They can use it as a fear tool. If they ever get nukes than it would work wonders as a fear tool.

So now you know why we would want to have the ability to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.

10 missiles couldn't protect anyone or anything from Russian missiles, because the Russians could easily fire 11 and not break a sweat.

I think Poland is sending a message to Russia by signing that deal. Those missiles can easily be turned round to fire at Russian ICBM's instead of Iranian ones.

I think Poland is sending a message to Russia by signing that deal. Those missiles can easily be turned round to fire at Russian ICBM's instead of Iranian ones.

Fat lot of good that would do. There are only 10 interceptors.

So now you know why we would want to have the ability to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.
10 missiles couldn't protect anyone or anything from Russian missiles, because the Russians could easily fire 11 and not break a sweat.
Of course. It's about Poland (which everyone always forgets). For some reason, Russia believes Poland to be still within its sphere of influence, and installation of ABM there an encroachment into it.
Plus there's the thing with the radar in Poland being capable of seeing a little into the Russian airspace.

Fat lot of good that would do. There are only 10 interceptors.

and some of our missiles can't be shot down, as of now.

Of course. It's about Poland (which everyone always forgets). For some reason, Russia believes Poland to be still within its sphere of influence, and installation of ABM there an encroachment into it.
Plus there's the thing with the radar in Poland being capable of seeing a little into the Russian airspace.

Nowadays, I believe that Russia believes it owns Poland. Just like it "owns" Georgia, and will "own" the Ukraine.

If you read the popular history books over there, they believe that at one time prior to 1600, the Russians ruled the entire world, and that current history books are all forgeries perpetrated upon Russia to humiliate them.

It's worse than the old Great Soviet Encyclopedia used to be.

So now you know why we would want to have the ability to protect Europe from Iranian missiles.

10 missiles couldn't protect anyone or anything from Russian missiles, because the Russians could easily fire 11 and not break a sweat.

Ok well you convinced me.

But you need to tell that to Dmitry Medvedev and Putin. And like I said when one of our nations wants something, the other is sure to not support it.

Ok well you convinced me.

But you need to tell that to Dmitry Medvedev and Putin. And like I said when one of our nations wants something, the other is sure to not support it.

I think they know the practical details of it - and would probably agree with me.

But this is for "home consumption" - Russia doesn't want to appear weak to its own people.

http://videogames.yahoo.com/feature/georgia-russia-conflict-predicted-in-2001-video-game/1237410

This was funny.

Recent news coverage of the worrying ground war between Russia and Georgia could well leave gamers with a sense of deja vu.

The South Ossetia war, which began on August 7, bears a close resemblance to events portrayed in the 2001 Xbox and Playstation 2 game "Tom Clancy's Ghost Recon," the first level of which takes place against the backdrop of a struggle between Georgian rebel forces and the legitimate Georgian government in the South Ossetian region.

Ghost Recon's plot follows these skirmishes with a full-scale Russian invasion of the region, a subsequent evacuation of US forces, and ultimately the fall of the Georgian government. Ghost Recon almost got the timescale right, too: the game's imaginary events begin in April 2008, just a few months before the real war kicked off.

If Ghost Recon's uncanny trend continues, we can expect the South Ossetia conflict to culminate in a dramatic assault on Red Square and the Kremlin by NATO troops -- spearheaded by an elite US special forces team under the control of a pimply fourteen-year-old with a joypad.

Nowadays, I believe that Russia believes it owns Poland. Just like it "owns" Georgia, and will "own" the Ukraine.
It's all about political points and trading favors. You understand something is for the greater good, but it shifts the influence, therefore you scream out about how much it is against you, and take steps to stop it or slow it down. So that you can make a trade that you allow it, and others allow you something else.


If you read the popular history books over there, they believe that at one time prior to 1600, the Russians ruled the entire world, and that current history books are all forgeries perpetrated upon Russia to humiliate them.
I don't think anyone even in Russia seriously believes crap like that Fomenko's books. Such fringe theorists exist in every nation. There's even the Flat Earth Society.

http://abcnews.go.com/International/wireStory?id=5585656

top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported.

The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations.

Poland and the United States on Thursday signed a deal for Poland to accept a missile interceptor base as part of a system the United States says is aimed at blocking attacks by rogue nations. Moscow, however, feels it is aimed at Russia's missile force.

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff, was quoted as saying.



Now that's not very nice is it? Using nuclear weapons first is very naughty. Even China signed a "no first use" agreement.

Why dose Poland have to be in NATO. This why should of not let former Warsaw Pact members in NATO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense

War with NATO?

EDIT:damn you beat me...

Why dose Poland have to be in NATO. This why should of not let former Warsaw Pact members in NATO.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080815/ap_on_re_eu/russia_us_missile_defense

War with NATO?

EDIT:damn you beat me...

Why shouldn't they be in NATO if their people voted to do so?

Or do you own Poland?

I want to know why they are so afraid of a missile DEFENCE system. It's not like the US has given them ICBM's.

I want to know why they are so afraid of a missile DEFENCE system. It's not like the US has given them ICBM's.

Because it means that they don't OWN Poland anymore.

The Russians, when the Warsaw Pact was in effect, believed that they OWNED the Poles.

Many Russians probably still believe they OWN the Poles, and if they can't OWN them, then they feel humiliated.

Why shouldn't they be in NATO if their people voted to do so?

Or do you own Poland?

Because I have to go into the military soon, I don't feel like fighting in a war with all of NATO.

Because it means that they don't OWN Poland anymore.

The Russians, when the Warsaw Pact was in effect, believed that they OWNED the Poles.

Many Russians probably still believe they OWN the Poles, and if they can't OWN them, then they feel humiliated.

No its more about keeping the balnce between you and us.

No its more about keeping the balnce between you and us.

What difference would Poland make?

We don't have the ability to invade and subjugate Russia in a conventional war, and a nuclear war would kill everyone on the planet.

Now you're just being illogical.

Because I have to go into the military soon, I don't feel like fighting in a war with all of NATO.

I thought you said you had all that fancy equipment. What are you worried about?

NATO is never going to invade Russia. It's just not a practical possibility.

Now, if you invade Poland, then you get your asses kicked in Poland, but that would be your leader's fault, not Poland's.

Because I have to go into the military soon, I don't feel like fighting in a war with all of NATO.

NATO is going to defend Poland regardless, as well other Warsaw Pact countries who have had enough of being bullied by Russia. if Poland wants weapons to defend itself, we'll give them.

Like how so many weapons your country made are in the hands of terrorists and such. Thanks a bleeding lot. Consider this payback for all the scummy countries you sold your tools of death to.

If Poland just sit by and have their weapons, you have nothing to be scared of. Maybe you just want an excuse to invade them?

What difference would Poland make?

We don't have the ability to invade and subjugate Russia in a conventional war, and a nuclear war would kill everyone on the planet.

Now you're just being illogical.

All of NATO vs Russia.

Having other nations in between NATO makes me feel much safer.

NATO is going to defend Poland regardless, as well other Warsaw Pact countries who have had enough of being bullied by Russia. if Poland wants weapons to defend itself, we'll give them.

Like how so many weapons your country made are in the hands of terrorists and such. Thanks a bleeding lot. Consider this payback for all the scummy countries you sold your tools of death to.

If Poland just sit by and have their weapons, you have nothing to be scared of. Maybe you just want an excuse to invade them?

We don't sell weapons to terrosits. What happen under the soviet union, was so many weapons were pumped out that they became very cheap. Some Nations which we sold lacked the abilty to store them saftly, or just sold them off later.

Invade? You can't invade a nation of NATO. It would be consider an attack of all.

All of NATO vs Russia.

Having other nations in between NATO makes me feel much safer.

Pardon me while I have a laugh.

Look, there isn't a practical outcome to any conventional war scenario between NATO and Russia - the deterrence comes from two sources.

1. The economy of the world would be shattered, probably for decades.
2. It would escalate into a nuclear war.

Any nuclear war scenario between NATO and Russia becomes:

1. Everyone on the planet dies.

Deterrence is a good thing, as long as we all stay sane.

Feel safe? NATO isn't going to attack anyone because they don't have the balls. If anyone attacks, it will be Russia, and if they actually want to attack, they're being insane.

I'm sure within hours of it starting NATO would attempt to ruin Russia's missile attack ability by destroying silos and submarines and shooting up airfields.

I'm sure within hours of it starting NATO would attempt to ruin Russia's missile attack ability by destroying silos and submarines and shooting up airfields.

We would see the missiles on the radar. In return we fire ours at you and we all die.

We don't need nuclear weapons to sink submarines and pothole runways you nonce.

We don't need nuclear weapons to sink submarines and pothole runways you nonce.

Good luck getting all of them.

Amazingly, nobody has shot the Al-Jazeera people yet.....

Amazingly, nobody has shot the Al-Jazeera people yet.....

They have more experience - the ones who did things like aim cameras at tanks are already dead. The remainder aren't stupid.

Can the missile shield be changed into a offensive weapon by the USA Hotwife? Medvedev says it is a threat.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29079

Can the missile shield be changed into a offensive weapon by the USA Hotwife? Medvedev says it is a threat.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29079

No.

The missile doesn't even have an explosive warhead. It can only kill something that is in flight (outside of the atmosphere) and it destroys the target by impacting directly on it.

It can't hit a ground target at all (or aircraft - since they are in the atmosphere).

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/gmd/

See the part called "hit-to-kill" technology.

The missile can't be used for anything else except hitting ICBMs or warheads outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

Can the missile shield be changed into a offensive weapon by the USA Hotwife? Medvedev says it is a threat.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29079

No, no, a thousand times no. A dozen interceptors isn't going to blunt doomsday. Not to mention the little fact that Polish interceptors are not in any position to shoot down Russian warheads. Putin and his proxy Medvedev are just trying to get PR out of this.

Can the missile shield be changed into a offensive weapon by the USA Hotwife? Medvedev says it is a threat.

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/29079

what that article is referring to is the ability that a missile shield conveys to the user. Meaning that a nation with a missile shield could launch conventional (or NBC) Weapons without having to worry About the threat of similar retaliation.

http://www.boeing.com/defense-space/space/gmd/

See the part called "hit-to-kill" technology.

The missile can't be used for anything else except hitting ICBMs or warheads outside of the Earth's atmosphere.

Good to know.

what that article is referring to is the ability that a missile shield conveys to the user. Meaning that a nation with a missile shield could launch conventional (or NBC) Weapons without having to worry About the threat of similar retaliation.

Unless if Russia is the enemy.

We have missiles that can't be shot down. So that really dosen't apply to us and we just have too many to shot down.

Unless if Russia is the enemy.

We have missiles that can't be shot down. So that really dosen't apply to us and we just have too many to shot down.

oh i know . . .but ya lol

Unless if Russia is the enemy.

We have missiles that can't be shot down. So that really dosen't apply to us and we just have too many to shot down.

Anything can be shot down. Each side has hundreds of missiles with thousands of warheads pointed at eachother. No "missile shield" would stop anyone if they decided to push the big red button.

I want proof of these Russian "super missiles". Otherwise I'm going to assume it's a lie.

Anything can be shot down. Each side has hundreds of missiles with thousands of warheads pointed at each other. No "missile shield" would stop anyone if they decided to push the big red button.

Each US interceptor site would only have a handful of missiles.

Useful against North Korea, or Iran.

Not useful against Russia.

Maybe useful against China.

On the subject of missiles that can't be shot down, I believe that's propaganda on the part of the Russians - the maneuvering warheads they came out with recently may prevent a terminal defense system like the THAAD from working (or PAC-3), but it has no effect on mid-course systems like the SM-3 and GBI.

Well heres some information on Topol-M and others

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rt-2pmu.htm

Its a wall of text....

I will look for a better to the point source and proof that it can't be shot down.

Look, there isn't a practical outcome to any conventional war scenario between NATO and Russia - the deterrence comes from two sources.
1. The economy of the world would be shattered, probably for decades.
2. It would escalate into a nuclear war.
It would get messy even without nuclear.

For one, Russia is a large country, so the modern US blitzkrieg-like tactics, relying on good logistics supporting a small amount of high-quality armament, won't work. Shipping units alone will take a massive amount of time. Then, full overseas logistics can't be maintained at this scale, so it would have to be a positional war, which means a long one.
2nd, if US and Russia are tied fighting each other, everyone in the world who had some military plans but was afraid will go ahead. China takes Taiwan, for the start, and it's also likely to be supporting Russia at least industrially.
3rd, war creates extra demand on oil, and its production is limited. At least, OPEC will boost prices immensely, or they can stop selling to US (remember 1973); at least they won't sell it for US dollars as USD becomes scrap paper in anticipation of a nuclear war. Even if not, there still won't be enough oil to supply US and Europe. It will become a choice between leaving military without oil or the civilians, causing a significant economic crisis.
4th, US Dollar is a very significant currency, but it's also a vulnerable one. The inevitable fall of the USD value is likely to trigger massive sales of the USD in favor of more reliable currency (probably one that OPEC will accept for oil), with avalanche effect. Europe, cut off from Russian energy and left in brownout, will also be have a crisis with Euro, although not as great as with USD.

And it's just the economic part, without actual war further exacerbating the damage. So we're looking towards at least a major international economic crisis, and at worst a collapse. Of course, a collapse for the West, with different countries coming on top. US fights Russia -> China wins. Not only China, but also other Asian countries and OPEC, of course.

The deterrence doesn't even require nukes.

Topol-M also has a shorter engine-burn time, to minimize satellite detection on launch.

Only bit I could see to say it was harder to shoot down.

Well heres some information on Topol-M and others

http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/world/russia/rt-2pmu.htm

Its a wall of text....

I will look for a better to the point source and proof that it can't be shot down.

By the end of 2006 Russia had five missile regiments equipped with silo-based Topol-M missiles, and one regiment equipped with mobile Topol-M systems. The total number of Topol-M ICBMs, including three silo-based systems to be deployed at the Tatishchevo base, will reach 48 by the end of 2006r, according to the Strategic Missile Forces Command.

President Vladimir Putin has said the deployment of mobile Topol-M systems contributes a great deal to Russia's national security. The first regiment of Topol-M mobile ICBMs was put on active duty in the Ivanovo region in Central Russia in early December 2006. "This is a significant step forward in improving our defense capabilities," he said while inspecting the regiment 14 December 2006. Defense Minister Sergei Ivanov said in 2006 that Russia was planning to purchase 69 silo-based and mobile Topol-M ballistic missile systems in the next decade.

That's 48 + 69 missiles. The missile was initially designed in 1992.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RT-2UTTH_Topol_M

There has been work on new propulsion systems for the Topol-M which may enable it to evade an anti-ballistic missile.

The missile is designed to be immune to any planned US ABM defense. It is capable of making evasive maneuvers to avoid a kill by terminal phase interceptors, and carries targeting countermeasures and decoys. It is shielded against radiation, EMP, nuclear blasts in distances less than 500 meters, and is designed to survive a hit from any laser technology.

The terminal phase is the phase right before it hits - and as I posted earlier, it might evade in that phase, but be hit in the mid-course phase by SM-3 or GBI.

The problem is, there is no defense from hit-to-kill - it isn't using radiation, EMP, nuclear blast, explosives, or lasers. It's just ramming something at 17,000 mph (its own velocity) plus 17,000 mph the other way (the target's velocity). Nothing in the world can stand the impact - nothing.

The SM-3 and GBI are also programmed to detect the difference between decoys and real warheads - it's not really a factor, since the target is being hit before it can deploy those.

What about that Boeing 747 with the laser system? A laser will travel faster than the missile.

What about that Boeing 747 with the laser system? A laser will travel faster than the missile.

Useful only in the boost phase. The 747 would have to be flying over Russia, which is unlikely.

Off the coast of Iran or North Korea, the Airborne Laser is practical. Over Russia, no.

The problem is, there is no defense from hit-to-kill - it isn't using radiation, EMP, nuclear blast, explosives, or lasers. It's just ramming something at 17,000 mph (its own velocity) plus 17,000 mph the other way (the target's velocity). Nothing in the world can stand the impact - nothing. Actually, not exactly "+", that would be only if the missile works as point defense, but that's beside the point, it's enough anyway.

The only defense here is not to be hit - it's a pretty difficult task to hit something so precisely at such velocity. So it becomes like with aircraft, evasion and countermeasures. A little bit of midcourse maneuvering can go a long way in spoiling such a precise hit.
It's possible to use early warhead separation, i.e. 6 warheads already in the midcourse stage. It's also possible then to use heavy decoys (not regular ones - heavy decoys, such as those carried by SS-18, are basically inert warheads - the treaty allowed for only 10 real ones).
So if a country is a big nuclear superpower, it can always find some ways around ABM. And even the perfect ABM against even the simplest missiles won't have 99% hit chance, it's real world, not NS.

Actually, not exactly "+", that would be only if the missile works as point defense, but that's beside the point, it's enough anyway.

The only defense here is not to be hit - it's a pretty difficult task to hit something so precisely at such velocity. So it becomes like with aircraft, evasion and countermeasures. A little bit of midcourse maneuvering can go a long way in spoiling such a precise hit.
It's possible to use early warhead separation, i.e. 6 warheads already in the midcourse stage. It's also possible then to use heavy decoys (not regular ones - heavy decoys, such as those carried by SS-18, are basically inert warheads - the treaty allowed for only 10 real ones).
So if a country is a big nuclear superpower, it can always find some ways around ABM. And even the perfect ABM against even the simplest missiles won't have 99% hit chance, it's real world, not NS.

The problem with a manuevering booster is that it shortens its effective range. The other problem is that the final stage of the interceptor is a very manueverable impactor.

While the odds of a hit against a Topol-M is certainly less than a hit on an Iranian missile (which can't afford any countermeasures - they're lucky it's flying the right direction), it's probably not zero.

In any case, the small number of interceptors is a clear indication that they are not meant for stopping Russian missiles (although if there was a single accidental launch, 10 might be handy).

The problem with a manuevering booster is that it shortens its effective range. The other problem is that the final stage of the interceptor is a very manueverable impactor.
It's not so easy. It can be very maneuverable by space standards, but they are far lower than Earth ones, due to the kinetic impulse; it takes a lot of effort to change the direction, and there's very little time. The KV has the ability to maneuver, but a small change in the missile's trajectory will require a major change in KV's trajectory.
Another issue is that in space, the KV, at least the current EKV, can't really "steer" (like a car or a plane), but can only "strafe". Nothing to push against, like a car with summer tires on very slippery ice. So the maneuverability is sufficient to correct for the booster's inaccuracy and reach the satellite, but not something maneuvering on its own.
Of course, losing range is a problem, but they already went for tradeoff by using only 6 warheads instead of 10, to allow for ABM penetration measures.


There is also some doubt about the capability even against less sophisticated missiles:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/lisbeth-gronlund-testimony-4.html
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_security/missile_defense/countermeasures.html

I'm sure within hours of it starting NATO would attempt to ruin Russia's missile attack ability by destroying silos and submarines and shooting up airfields.

most Russian aircraft were designed to take off of makeshift runways, so the airfield point is null. A lot of our missiles, at least during the Cold War, were mobile to avoid situations like that.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4543728.ece

Is the madness over? Or is it just beginning?

Well, Saakashvili said early this morning that if Russian troops don't leave Georgia he'll see it as aan end to the ceasefire.

Well, Saakashvili said early this morning that if Russian troops don't leave Georgia he'll see it as aan end to the ceasefire.

He just dosen't learn his lesson? Hes a bigger fool trhan I thought if he tries to attack our troops, his military is no threat to us anymore. I hope he still doesn't consider South Ossetia Gerogia's land.

He just dosen't learn his lesson? Hes a bigger fool trhan I thought if he tries to attack our troops, his military is no threat to us anymore. Hey YOU are violating the Ceasefire. All he'll have to do is shoot you when your troops appear outside his capital. The world won't fault him for that.


I hope he still doesn't consider South Ossetia Gerogia's land.
It's not Russias.

The SM-3 and GBI are also programmed to detect the difference between decoys and real warheads - it's not really a factor, since the target is being hit before it can deploy those.

So why they enabled SM3 and GBI to detect decoys?

I think ABM systems are a VERY last hope... sorta like holding on a piece of driftwood after having your ship sunk in Antarctic waters. "Hey, I got my piece of driftwood! Yay! I won!"

Hey YOU are violating the Ceasefire. All he'll have to do is shoot you when your troops appear outside his capital. The world won't fault him for that.



It's not Russias.

That was before the ceasefire was in play. We are pulling back, as I am tybing this.

No, but it will be free from Georiga. Dmitry Medvedev has stated many times that Russia will make sure South Ossetia and Abkhazia get the right to choose their own fate. If they wish to join than us after independnce is given than there is no reason why they shouldn't.

On the subject of nuclear war, why the hell would they fire 1000 nukes anyways? And on that note, why target cities where there is no military in at all? Wouldn't that be blatent murder of a civilian populace?
I don't think Putin or Bush are that nuts.

Russia's doctrine states they would only engage millitary targets and such such as troop formations.

Whether they would do that or not is something I don't really want to find out.

On the subject of nuclear war, why the hell would they fire 1000 nukes anyways? And on that note, why target cities where there is no military in at all? Wouldn't that be blatent murder of a civilian populace?
I don't think Putin or Bush are that nuts.

Well, when you target military targets with nukes, a very large area would be effected. DC is a target, well if we used a nuke on DC a military/Political target, it would end up killing most the civilian populace as well. Since nukes can destroy an entrie city and some can destroy small countries.

Then the other side would fire back and soon on. Nnd ennough nukes could be fired to kill off all the pople of the world.

People can survive nuclear blasts. Look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Look at Tunguska. 20,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima and people survived.

People can survive nuclear blasts. Look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Look at Tunguska. 20,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima and people survived.

True.

I should of said most.

Apparently if you are directly under the blast you have a good chance of survival because an airbust ballons out over the area. If it was detonating when it hit the ground you'd be fucked but nukes are less effective in that way as opposed to airbursting.

People can survive nuclear blasts. Look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Look at Tunguska. 20,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima and people survived.

Yeah, but Tunguska wasn't a nuke, it wasn't in a city, and the nearest people were something like 50 miles away.

An asteroid is far more powerful though.........Depending on size and what it is made up of.

Apparently if you are directly under the blast you have a good chance of survival because an airbust ballons out over the area. If it was detonating when it hit the ground you'd be fucked but nukes are less effective in that way as opposed to airbursting.

Yeah, but wouldn't it get so hot under the explosion that you would be instantly vaporized anyways? I guess it depends how high up it was detonated, right?
I could see the gamma rays missing you though.

I suppose you'd need to be in some form of cover but it might just save you.

Of course the radiation and such will probably kill you.

Uh going back on topic. It seems Russians are making the Georgians clean up Tskhinvali.

At gunpoint... Some people never grow up.

Apparently if you are directly under the blast you have a good chance of survival because an airbust ballons out over the area. If it was detonating when it hit the ground you'd be fucked but nukes are less effective in that way as opposed to airbursting.
At first, you'd survive, but then wouldn't, because as the explosion progresses, it rises in the air, creating a vacuum underneath, hence the mushroom cloud. Thus, you die anyway, as the winds lift you up in the air, then drop you from thousands of feet.

People can survive nuclear blasts. Look at Hiroshima & Nagasaki.

Look at Tunguska. 20,000 times more powerful than Hiroshima and people survived.

People survived Tunguska because nobody was around when it hit. Nobody near anyway.

At first, you'd survive, but then wouldn't, because as the explosion progresses, it rises in the air, creating a vacuum underneath, hence the mushroom cloud. Thus, you die anyway, as the winds lift you up in the air, then drop you from thousands of feet.

Assuming you survived being broiled alive by the superheated air.

Uh going back on topic. It seems Russians are making the Georgians clean up Tskhinvali.

At gunpoint... Some people never grow up.

They should be paying the money to rebuild it too, but we are. Than again its not going to be Gerogian, but still they did shell the city and attack it.

They should be paying the money to rebuild it too, but we are. Than again its not going to be Gerogian, but still they did shell the city and attack it.

Is Russia going to rebuild the parts of Georgia they destroyed?

Is Russia going to rebuild the parts of Georgia they destroyed?

We have been given aid to people in Georgia, like Gori. We also had to enter and take out military tagets. There would of been no conflict if the UN did a better job of discussing the status of South Ossetia and Gerogia didn't attack it.

We have been given aid to people in Georgia, like Gori. We also had to enter and take out military tagets. There would of been no conflict if the UN did a better job of discussing the status of South Ossetia and Gerogia didn't attack it.

You also did not answer my question, like usual. Your ability to dodge answering any question regarding Russian actions is staggering. Your ability to lay blame for the Russian invasion with everyone in the known universe besides Russia herself is similarly staggering.

So, I'll ask again. Does Russia intend to rebuild all the damage they did to Georgia in their punitive invasion, or will they only rebuild the sections of Georgia that are controlled by separatists.

I fail to see how the UN could have done a better job discussing the status of South Ossetia, too.

You also did not answer my question, like usual. Your ability to dodge answering any question regarding Russian actions is staggering. Your ability to lay blame for the Russian invasion with everyone in the known universe besides Russia herself is similarly staggering.

So, I'll ask again. Does Russia intend to rebuild all the damage they did to Georgia in their punitive invasion, or will they only rebuild the sections of Georgia that are controlled by separatists.

I fail to see how the UN could have done a better job discussing the status of South Ossetia, too.

Why should be pay for the repairs in Georgia? Of course we are not going to re-build their country for them. Its not like we wanted to enter this conflict.

UN should of made South Ossetia a separte state. It has tried to gain independnce form Georgia since it was made part of it. Most (90%) of the people there have supported independce. The UN should of made steps to make this happen.

There would of been no conflict if the UN did a better job of discussing the status of South Ossetia and Gerogia didn't attack it.

You know, I thought it was only native speakers of English who made this kind of grammatical error. Surely a Russian who learned it as a second language would be more familiar with the written form, and less familiar with such sloppy colloquialisms. And I notice you've only been here since all the Georgia-Russia tensions started. I suspect trolling.

You know, I thought it was only native speakers of English who made this kind of grammatical error. Surely a Russian who learned it as a second language would be more familiar with the written form, and less familiar with such sloppy colloquialisms. And I notice you've only been here since all the Georgia-Russia tensions started. I suspect trolling.

colloquialisms?

Yes but your worng in where your going with this.

I would like to see how well you do with a second language.

Yes but your worng in where your going with this.

Really?

These are the kinds of mistakes made by native speakers, who learn to speak long before they learn to write. Surely if it was a second language, you would learn the written and spoken parts at the same time, and therefore would have no reason to get [would have/would of] or [your/you're] mixed up.

Why would a foreigner say 'would of'? You only make that kind of mistake if you never had to learn english grammar in order to speak it.

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...


One can forgive the confusion. They are both equally Christian.

Why not quickly test his Russian instead of arguing whether he could make such a mistake or not?

Why not quickly test his Russian instead of arguing whether he could make such a mistake or not?

That works. He can give me one minute to translate his sentnces into Russian.

Assuming you survived being char-broiled alive by the superheated air.
Fixed. [/apollo 13 movie]

Why should be pay for the repairs in Georgia? Of course we are not going to re-build their country for them. Its not like we wanted to enter this conflict.

UN should of made South Ossetia a separte state. It has tried to gain independnce form Georgia since it was made part of it. Most (90%) of the people there have supported independce. The UN should of made steps to make this happen.

If you didn't want want to enter then why did you? Oh wait, I know, your so called peacekeepers got killed for being on Georgian territory.

UN should of made Chechnya and Dagestan a separte state. It has tried to gain independnce form Russia since it was made part of it. Most (90%) of the people there have supported independce. The UN should of made steps to make this happen.

You see, your own arguments can be used against you.

Why should be pay for the repairs in Georgia? Of course we are not going to re-build their country for them. Its not like we wanted to enter this conflict.
Yeah, that is made completely clear by the fact that Russia not only bombed Georgia outside military installations but also invaded Georgian territory outside of separatist territory. :rolleyes:

PS TO EVERYONE: It is should have, would have. Should of? Of what? You people are moronically separating the contraction "should've" of "should" and "have" into two separate fucking words which literally make no god damn sense. Even should ev makes more sense and is more correct.

That was before the ceasefire was in play. We are pulling back, as I am tybing this.

No, but it will be free from Georiga. Dmitry Medvedev has stated many times that Russia will make sure South Ossetia and Abkhazia get the right to choose their own fate. If they wish to join than us after independnce is given than there is no reason why they shouldn't.

Seeing as the cease fire stated that both territories are within Georgia, and that the rest of the world is backing Georgia's territorial integrity, I don't think that the Russian President really has a say in what happens to both regions.

Seeing as the cease fire stated that both territories are within Georgia, and that the rest of the world is backing Georgia's territorial integrity, I don't think that the Russian President really has a say in what happens to both regions.

I somehow doubt Medvedev really has a say anyway.

Hi,
Wondering what the rest of NS thinks about The Russian-Georgia Situation
Please post like the following

do you agree with it or not (Yes or No)
do you think there should be cease fire (Yes or No)
What do you think the UN should do?

What you think the USA should do?

What you think Russia should do now?

Your countrys name

Mr. Mikheil SAAKASHVILI has screwed up his own country with the connivance of America. Now the instigators of the war are labeling Russia as an "imperialist" or a "Czarist" nation. I just feel sorry for the Georgian people who didn't ask for this.











CANADA (I'm not a Russian Canadian nor do I usually champion for Russia)

lets see Russian peace keepers are there to protect separatist funded and agitated by them how exactly are they peace keepers? it would be like the US claiming to be peace keepers in Iraq. The Georgians have every right to be upset.

Since even if the Russians stop funding and agitating the separatist they will still be there. We should send in some UN peace keepers from NON NATO/ NON former soviets states to keep the peace. so mainly from India, China, and the like.

that being said they should have a very high degree of local rule (which they did under Georgian rule). Separation should be discouraged but allowed after a period of time if the minorities feel no other measure can safe guard their rights after a trial of self rule.

do you agree with it or not (Yes or No)

No, I rarely agree with people shooting at each other. I think Georgia should have recognized S. Ossetian and Abkhazian independence in 94 and have been done with it.

do you think there should be cease fire (Yes or No)

Of course. I think the Georgians have been thoroughly put off from the idea of taking S. Ossetia and Abkhazia back and Russia has no right to traipse around the Georgian countryside.

What do you think the UN should do?

Humanitarian aid to Georgia, S. Ossetia and Abkhazia while opening up a dialogue on the future status and possible (probable) independence of S. Ossetia and Abkhazia.

What you think the USA should do?

Give humanitarian aid to Georgia, S. Ossetia and Abkhazia, take refugees, that sort of thing.

What you think Russia should do now?

Pull all their troops back to the S. Ossetian and Abkhazian borders immediately, if not sooner.

Your countrys name

Les États-Unis d'Amerique.

The last thread along these lines went better than a thousand posts...
in other words...
I'm Out!

We've already got a thread on it.

The Russians are slowly pulling out of Georgia proper into South Ossetia, but they're still in Poti and other parts of the country.

Haven't posted in this thread yet, so here's my summary of the issue:

The undemocratic, repressive government of Georgia under Saakashvili is interested in NATO membership, along with territorial integrity. Also, Georgians hate Ossetians (generalization; many Georgians with guns hate Ossetians). So Georgia (or Saakashvili) decides to take back their territory by force, committing the occasional war crime in the process.

The undemocratic, repressive government of Russia that has been fucking with former Soviet states and satellite states by supporting separatist regions (Transnistria, Abkhazia, South Ossetia) is protecting Russian citi- no, Ossetians that have been given Russian citizenship so that Russia can engage in military action with the excuse of protecting Russian citizens- from the Georgians, and decides to use the opportunity to occupy a major competitor in the energy supply market, committing the occasional war crime in the process.

What we now have is a dilemma, characterized by being a situation with no good choices available, but a choice needing to be made: Which lying, murdering bastards are at fault and which are less at fault?

Also, as a citizen of the West, there's this difficulty in criticizing Russia for its actions, seeing as precedents for it have been set by NATO in Kosovo and Serbia and by the Coalition of the Willing in Iraq. Though I'll admit it is funny in a sad kind of way seeing Russia resort to pretty much exactly the means which NATO and the US did that it criticized so heavily.

We must condemn both Russian AND Georgian social-chauvinism! The only legitimate use of violence is by the people against their own governments.

They should be paying the money to rebuild it too, but we are. Than again its not going to be Gerogian, but still they did shell the city and attack it.
It's the Georgians that were living there being forced to clean up. The same ones who got hit by the artillery also.

Why should be pay for the repairs in Georgia? Of course we are not going to re-build their country for them. Its not like we wanted to enter this conflict.
Sure you didn't... Yet you have no problem rampaging through parts of Georgia that had nothing to do with the conflict.

All damage done that had nothing to do with the battle are simply because your army was being a bunch of assholes.

If they wish to join than us after independnce is given than there is no reason why they shouldn't.

Which I'm not suprised if that's what Russia wanted from the very beginning.

Land grab, nothing more, nothing less. Attempt to justify it all you like, but it's a landgrab.

Land grab, nothing more, nothing less. Attempt to justify it all you like, but it's a landgrab.
This reminds of that McCarthyist styled propaganda piece with the Russian solider painting the globe red.

Also, on that topic, hasn't the Russophobia come out over this, I mean I always knew Brits were racist against Russia since forever, but it's almost been hysterical in the media.

This reminds of that McCarthyist styled propaganda piece with the Russian solider painting the globe red.

Also, on that topic, hasn't the Russophobia come out over this, I mean I always knew Brits were racist against Russia since forever, but it's almost been hysterical in the media.

It's not the Russian people we hate, just the fact every government they get likes to attack everywhere.

It's not the Russian people we hate, just the fact every government they get likes to attack everywhere.

Oh don't give me that, I can smell the phobic racism a mile off, it's just more of this Evil Empire garbage coming out again, the evil Russian plot for world domination.

The 'Western' media have been hysterical with all this rot, trying to frame the situation in with their ridiculous attempts to revive a Cold War narrative, when it fact it was Georgian aggression against Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia which started this.

Oh don't give me that, I can smell the phobic racism a mile off, it's just more of this Evil Empire garbage coming out again, the evil Russian plot for world domination.
Wake up Every superpower has it's aspects of being an Evil Empire.

The Bush Administration proved it's inner Imperalist with Iraq. Putin is showing his "Cold War\fear me." tactic right now. It's a bad side effect of absolute power.


The 'Western' media have been hysterical with all this rot, trying to frame the situation in with their ridiculous attempts to revive a Cold War narrative, when it fact it was Georgian aggression against Russian peace keepers in South Ossetia which started this. Actually Russia said it was to rescue the "Native Russians" aka the ones that lived there all their lives yet still had Russia citizenship.

Nothing justified the full scale invasion, especially of places on the other side of the nation. The invasion and defense of South Ossetia was pretty much legit.

If Russia had stopped there they would have won the propraganda war right there.

When they crossed the border, the cheering stopped.

What would you think would have happened if the US decided to end Vietnam by Invading North Vietnam?

Well that's what's happening.

This all could have been different if the Georgians could fight better...

All those American guns and equipment we capture, never fired, only dropped once.

This all could have been different if the Georgians could fight better...

All those American guns and equipment we capture, never fired, only dropped once.

They probably would've fought if you'd gone all the way to Tbilisi.

They probably would've fought if you'd gone all the way to Tbilisi.

Yeah, well they ran when they heard the Russians were coming to Gori. It seems the only 'training' they got from the Americans is in how to flee like cowards.

Ralishuland, where are you from?

This all could have been different if the Georgians could fight better...
Why bother, it would be impossible to win and you know it. The only reason you would want the Georgians to fight is because you want to slaughter them.

You know those claims of Russia wanting Genocide don't exactly sound as far fetched.

All those American guns and equipment we capture, never fired, only dropped once. Or never picked up.

The thing is that the first "Ceasefire" happened shortly after Russia entered the country.

It was a one sided ceasefire but one Georgia obeyed because they knew that if they did ANYTHING Russia would go "SEE! SEE! Now we kill them!" Then crush the entire country.

This is more like a warped II RP than a war.

Why bother, it would be impossible to win and you know it. The only reason you would want the Georgians to fight is because you want to slaughter them.

You know those claims of Russia wanting Genocide don't exactly sound as far fetched.
Or never picked up.

The thing is that the first "Ceasefire" happened shortly after Russia entered the country.

It was a one sided ceasefire but one Georgia obeyed because they knew that if they did ANYTHING Russia would go "SEE! SEE! Now we kill them!" Then crush the entire country.

This is more like a warped II RP than a war.
The Georgian Army it seems has been royally exposed not as the great Western armed machine Saakashvili made it out to be, but as an absolute shambles.

How good's your country's army?

How good's your country's army?
I am not a nationalist, so it doesn't matter. You are evidently however a nationalist.

It IS you, I was wondering how long it'd take you to get back, and no, I'm not a nationalist.

The Georgian Army it seems has been royally exposed not as the great Western armed machine Saakashvili made it out to be, but as an absolute shambles.

Either that, or they are smart enough to not get totally obliterated by a force multiple times larger than them. They are much smarter to hang around and wait until they can have re-inforcements or support from other countries.

It IS you, I was wondering how long it'd take you to get back, and no, I'm not a nationalist.Andaras?

The Georgian Army it seems has been royally exposed not as the great Western armed machine Saakashvili made it out to be, but as an absolute shambles.

It is a point of fact that anyone who gains air superiority over their enemy will defeat them, no matter what other fancy equipment they may have.

At that point, size doesn't matter much - the Russians, while they have a larger military by comparison, are using a small percentage of their total ground forces for this.

Most small nations do not have an integrated air defense system capable of taking on the Russians. And for those that do, that IADS is incapable of withstanding an attack by the Americans.

Just because you buy fancy ground equipment doesn't mean you have an effective Army. In fact, it most likely means you've wasted your money, because it's going to get blown up when you lose (and you will lose).

Most small nations have such forces to impress their neighbors (as long as the neighbor isn't Russia), and to enforce political will within their borders (you know, like Saddam did with the Kurds and Shias, and how Serbia did with Kosovo, and how Georgia was doing the Ossetians).

Other small nations (the Gulf States, for instance) have ground forces because the toys look nifty. Most of them, however, have excellent IADS using US aircraft and training, and US PAC-3 SAM systems.

Regardless of what's on the ground now, if the US and Russia could hold it to a conventional war, the US could easily gain air superiority in the area. After which, every Russian unit would essentially be a target to be obliterated over time. The US military is expressly designed to defeat such a large conventional (and Russian) force, and is very, very good at it compared to their abilities against largely disorganized and decentralized insurgent forces.

We might not even have to send any ground troops - it's possible for the US to blow up entire divisions over a very short period of time and a small number of sorties.

*snip*
Heck right now we could have some A-10s and F-15s over Georgia within a few hours since they are already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, be in an out in a day and Russia's occupiation army would be a smoking crateor.

I really think the US and the other nations need to pull off a huge bluff.

Like having some of the eastern European countries mobilize on the Russian border.

Heck right now we could have some A-10s and F-15s over Georgia within a few hours since they are already deployed in Iraq and Afghanistan, be in an out in a day and Russia's occupiation army would be a smoking crateor.

I really think the US and the other nations need to pull off a huge bluff.

Like having some of the eastern European countries mobilize on the Russian border.
I really doubt pulling that sort of stunt would help the situation at all right now. It's probably the sort of thing the Russians have been itching we do for ages right now. It'd definately make the Russian people forget a lot of their problems. There's nothing like a war for that sort of thing.

I really doubt pulling that sort of stunt would help the situation at all right now. It's probably the sort of thing the Russians have been itching we do for ages right now. It'd definately make the Russian people forget a lot of their problems. There's nothing like a war for that sort of thing.

Plus they have ICBMs.

I really doubt pulling that sort of stunt would help the situation at all right now. It's probably the sort of thing the Russians have been itching we do for ages right now. Saber rattling is pretty normal in these situations, heck it has already happened.

Ukraine already did it when they declared that they can bar the Black Sea fleet from Returning.

A statement by the leaders of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland:
"will use all means available to us as Presidents to ensure that aggression against a small country in Europe will not be passed over in silence or with meaningless statements equating the victims with the victimizers" could be seen as a threat.

Or the speech by President of Ukraine Viktor Yushchenko:
"Freedom is worthy to fight for it. We came here to prove your sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence. That is our values. You never be alone. ... There are millions of us." And that speech could really be seen as a statement that they will fight Russia if it comes to it.

And of course the Chechnya Rebels said they are standing by to start hitting Russia if Georgia requests it.

It'd definately make the Russian people forget a lot of their problems.
There's nothing like a war for that sort of thing.
The war is already on though.

Plus they have ICBMs.
And we have them also, hence they aren't going to use them. I'm guessing Russia would only resort to nuclear attack if they thought that there was a chance to actually lose the war.

And we have them also, hence they aren't going to use them. I'm guessing Russia would only resort to nuclear attack if they thought that there was a chance to actually lose the war.

I would take it as a given that they would lose a conventional war.

The main reason that they know we won't do anything:

1. Bush is a lame duck with no political support - he might want to fight over Georgia, but no one in the US would go along with it.

2. The next President will be Obama - and all he will do is talk while the Russians roll over whomever they wish. The Ukraine is next, and I bet that if they bombed the missile site in Poland, Obama would reneg on the security arrangement for Poland in favor of more talking.

So, the US avoids being in any war, and the Russians take whatever they like. The Europeans don't have the stomach for any sort of war in their own backyard, so don't count on them to do anything but talk, either.

IThe next President will be Obama - and all he will do is talk while the Russians roll over whomever they wish. The Ukraine is next, and I bet that if they bombed the missile site in Poland, Obama would reneg on the security arrangement for Poland in favor of more talking.
I seriously doubt that any US President or any member of the European Union would ignore Russia attacking Ukraine.

I seriously doubt that any US President or any member of the European Union would ignore Russia attacking Ukraine.

Unlike Poland, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and there is no mutual security agreement. We're constrained to help if they attack Poland, but there's no guarantee in my mind that people would do anything except talk and talk and talk.

"We need to give negotiations time to work..."

Unlike Poland, the Ukraine is not a member of NATO, and there is no mutual security agreement. We're constrained to help if they attack Poland, but there's no guarantee in my mind that people would do anything except talk and talk and talk.

"We need to give negotiations time to work..."
the only real question is whether or not RUSSIA has the balls to carry it through.

the only real question is whether or not RUSSIA has the balls to carry it through.

They sure do. You can bet on it.

I bet the Ukraine will give them a bloody nose even if they lose.