NationStates Jolt Archive

If I may alter the timeline of events a bit and say that France & Germany didn't deny Georgia NATO membership....

Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation. There was a skirmish between Georgians and Ossetians prior to the launch of the attack. Russia responds the same way they did. Europe, except Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) refuses to go to go to war with Russia. Should the US declare on Russia?

McCain/Palin said "Yes!"
Obama/Biden said "No!"

Oh, and remember that you don't know what Russia may do as a result, they may give nukes to the "Axis of Evil" as a result of the US Declaration. Also keep in mind that China's very pissed off at Georgia - "how dare they start a war during OUR Olympics!!!" They could also launch nukes, so umm, yeah....

After you answer Yes/No, if you want, type in as to what you'd do.

China was pretty mad about a war getting started right as their shiny Olympics were beginning.

The main difference is it would have covered this more as Georgia aggression in the media. See France in fighting in Tunisia, we didn't even let the French produce more print more money to help fund the war.

Though to be honest it would not have happened like that, if Georgia were in Nato. The presence of a US military base would like produce more restrained actions on both Russia's and Georgia's part.

Shofercia,
I don't know where are you come from and what kind of experience do you have in relations with Russians, but I can assure you that Russian government and it's FSB/KGB/Specnaz agencies are pretty good in provocations... (see: mysterious "Chechnyan" blasts in Moscow before Russian attack)
You see, if West countries won't do nothing about situations like just happened in Georgia, soon we will see the same "provocations" in Crimea, Transnisstria and other pro-european post-soviet countries. And after that we'll see the same things in other countries with Russian minority (all the baltic states, especially Estonia). That's why Poland invited US Army to set military bases and missiles in our country this year...

Shofercia,
I don't know where are you come from and what kind of experience do you have in relations with Russians, but I can assure you that Russian government and it's FSB/KGB/Specnaz agencies are pretty good in provocations... (see: mysterious "Chechnyan" blasts in Moscow before Russian attack)
You see, if West countries won't do nothing about situations like just happened in Georgia, soon we will see the same "provocations" in Crimea, Transnisstria and other pro-european post-soviet countries. And after that we'll see the same things in other countries with Russian minority (all the baltic states, especially Estonia). That's why Poland invited US Army to set military bases and missiles in our country this year...

which is why if your anywhere near Russia I recommend get in NATO, Get NATO bases set up and do your best to keep them there.

A war with Russia is the LAST thing the USA needs at the moment surely!

A war with Russia wouldn't be like a war with Iraq (and look how that went), Russia is actually an incredably strong military power!, they have a huge army and nuclear war heads.
Europe would AGAIN become a battleground! WE DONT NEED IT! we've lived almost 100 years as a buffer zone between the US and the USSR we dont want to be a buffer zone between the US and Russia!

Russia may or may not be in the wrong but at the end of the day the only thing we can do is negotiate, and freeze them out economically!, war is NOT an option when it comes to Russia! They won't just submit like Iraq were SUPPOSED to do, they will fight back and we will end up getting another REAL war between two great powers! its in NO ONES interest!

Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation.

Hardly. The atack on Tskhinvali was nowehere near as bad as the Russians have made out and the Russians have been actively seeking a war in the region for years.

Europe, except Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) refuses to go to go to war with Russia.

That would automatically cause collapse of NATO (if Georgia is allowed to be invaded, then who is next to be sold to bear?), resulting collapse of current defence policies of Eastern-European states. That would mean general militarization in Europe, as you need more guns then you dont have NATO umbrella. I would predict even states like Poland, Romania and Ukraine starting their own nuclear programmes.

Anyway, if all other NATO states except Poland and Baltics refuse to participate in such conflict, US aid to Georgia would become problematic from military point of view. Georgia is in pretty hard geographical position to support, if you can't use territories of other nearby NATO states for transporting troops and equipment.

McCain and Palin should be briefed on Saakashvili's background and then decide if they really want to associate with this wannabe dictator.

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Protected/Articles/000/000/004/104ygtvi.asp?pg=2
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/apr/01/georgia.oil

A war with Russia is the LAST thing the USA needs at the moment surely!

A war with Russia wouldn't be like a war with Iraq (and look how that went), Russia is actually an incredably strong military power!, they have a huge army and nuclear war heads.
Europe would AGAIN become a battleground! WE DONT NEED IT! we've lived almost 100 years as a buffer zone between the US and the USSR we dont want to be a buffer zone between the US and Russia!

Russia may or may not be in the wrong but at the end of the day the only thing we can do is negotiate, and freeze them out economically!, war is NOT an option when it comes to Russia! They won't just submit like Iraq were SUPPOSED to do, they will fight back and we will end up getting another REAL war between two great powers! its in NO ONES interest!

Actually, a war with Russia would probably be a lot easier than a war against Iraq/Afghanistan/Vietnam because of Russia's large military. Due to their power, it would be a lot easier to get them into a stand up fight where the NATO countries would be dominant instead of the type of unbalanced battling in the Gulf that automatically leads to guerilla type fighting.

Also If the Eastern countries keep us from entering Russia through the West, we can also use our NATO ally, Turkey, and what would be our ally Georgia to enter Russia via the Caucasus. See map below.

http://static.lonelyplanet.com/worldguide/maps/wg-turkey-3592-400x300.gif

Should? Should?!?

Theres no should about it. If Georgia was in Nato either America (and everyone else) would have to honour the collective defense clause or it would cease to be regarded as an important organisation at all. Like The League of Nations.

The very thought of a Russia-US war scares me, and the US couldn't afford it, in terms of money and troops, if Russia were to invade Georgia as a NATO country, the US should offer aid in the form of weapons, military training etc, but not troops on the ground, that would start WW3 and the world isn't ready for that....

The USA has been acting the bully of the world for years now, just as many are accusing places like Russia of being.

The USA had a large, powerful military and economy.

The question is, will we use our strength as a force for good, and cooperation, or degenerate further and be the eternal schoolyard bully.

The USA is having a hard time adjusting to the fact, after about 100 years or so of being a rising and dominant power, that the rest of the world is "out there" and growing, and the world has perfectly legitimate claims to be respected.

The USA really can be a leader for good, for diplomacy, for influence for decency in the world, and needs to share the power, not be a unilateral bully. The planet is Earth, not Planet America.

We really need to get over ourselves, and actually listen to, communicate with, and truly interact with the rest of the world.

There is a lot of good here in the USA. But sometimes our pride gets in the way of being effective.

A war with Russia is the LAST thing the USA needs at the moment surely!

A war with Russia wouldn't be like a war with Iraq (and look how that went), Russia is actually an incredably strong military power!, they have a huge army and nuclear war heads.
Europe would AGAIN become a battleground! WE DONT NEED IT! we've lived almost 100 years as a buffer zone between the US and the USSR we dont want to be a buffer zone between the US and Russia!

Russia may or may not be in the wrong but at the end of the day the only thing we can do is negotiate, and freeze them out economically!, war is NOT an option when it comes to Russia! They won't just submit like Iraq were SUPPOSED to do, they will fight back and we will end up getting another REAL war between two great powers! its in NO ONES interest!


I remember when Russia was about to occupy the port city of Poti, I said that the Americans and British should land Marines and Royal Marines to prevent them from seizing the oil assets, by force if necessary. I'm all for war with Russia if it means protecting British and American interests.

The USA has been acting the bully of the world for years now, just as many are accusing places like Russia of being.

The USA had a large, powerful military and economy.

The question is, will we use our strength as a force for good, and cooperation, or degenerate further and be the eternal schoolyard bully.

The USA is having a hard time adjusting to the fact, after about 100 years or so of being a rising and dominant power, that the rest of the world is "out there" and growing, and the world has perfectly legitimate claims to be respected.

The USA really can be a leader for good, for diplomacy, for influence for decency in the world, and needs to share the power, not be a unilateral bully. The planet is Earth, not Planet America.

We really need to get over ourselves, and actually listen to, communicate with, and truly interact with the rest of the world.

There is a lot of good here in the USA. But sometimes our pride gets in the way of being effective.


How, precisely, has the US been a bully to anyone? I haven't seen us do anything but good in the world. And if you say invading Iraq was "Bullying", I laugh in your general direction. I fail to see why people are crying over the elimination of a Fascist dictator.

The US can't afford another war right now.

How, precisely, has the US been a bully to anyone? I haven't seen us do anything but good in the world. And if you say invading Iraq was "Bullying", I laugh in your general direction. I fail to see why people are crying over the elimination of a Fascist dictator.

Colombia and the breakup of Panama.
Grenada
Haiti

If the US and Russia start a war, then i just want to say: Whip out your helmets, The third world war is here.
Before you all start crying in a furious rage and start maniacally bashing the keyboard just listen to this.
World War I started with the assassination of a prince...
If two of the worlds most powerful countries should start warring, WW3 will erupt.

Colombia and the breakup of Panama.
Grenada
Haiti

The breaking of Panama and Columbia can be considered bullying.
Grenada was not bullying, but it was a gross overreaction.
Haiti was not bullying but peacekeeping. Any of the 3 or 4 times we've gone in there.

Should? Should?!?

Theres no should about it. If Georgia was in Nato either America (and everyone else) would have to honour the collective defense clause or it would cease to be regarded as an important organisation at all. Like The League of Nations.

The collective DEFENSE clause is just that:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

...which is why NATO scrambled fighters to defend the US an hour after the 9.11 attacks, but didn't go into Viet Nam (or any number of other war zones) with the US or with the British during the Falklands War.

Colombia and the breakup of Panama.
Grenada
Haiti

First of all...what was wrong with kicking the Cubans out of Grenada? Would you like the Communists to have an airfield which could strike the United States?

Haiti...well I believe that was a peacekeeping operation, was it not? Are you opposed to stopping civil wars or do you like perpetuating them and seeing wanton slaughter and bloodshed?

First of all...what was wrong with kicking the Cubans out of Grenada? Would you like the Communists to have an airfield which could strike the United States?
The Cubans didn't need Grenada to strike the US. They had... you know.... Cuba to do that. Secondly, the Cubans/Soviets had the opportunity to use much much worse measures against the United States during the Cuban Missle Crisis (like the use of tactical nuclear weapons, both on the battle field and via missiles) and they never used it. So the argument that "them Commies almost had a chance to hit us, but lucky we stopped em" is, frankly, horse-shit.

Pick a country in Latin/South America. Odds are the US fucked around in it's internal politics for their own benefit. Try Nicaragua for instance.

As for the OP, that's pretty much the reason Georgia ain't in the NATO - because they're cowboys that no one wants to defend.

First of all...what was wrong with kicking the Cubans out of Grenada? Would you like the Communists to have an airfield which could strike the United States?

Haiti...well I believe that was a peacekeeping operation, was it not? Are you opposed to stopping civil wars or do you like perpetuating them and seeing wanton slaughter and bloodshed?

Lol yes because the Cubans are a GIANT ENEMAY, tehy have teh uber outdated soviet equipment!!

Give it a rest, Cuba is highly over estimated.

And on a further note, if Georgia enters NATO the would will become that much more diplomatically screwed.

The collective DEFENSE clause is just that:

The Parties of NATO agreed that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all. Consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defense will assist the Party or Parties being attacked, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

...which is why NATO scrambled fighters to defend the US an hour after the 9.11 attacks, but didn't go into Viet Nam (or any number of other war zones) with the US or with the British during the Falklands War.

Hmm good point. I probably should have read the clause first.

In which case war is reserved for the case where Russia is hell-bent against leaving.

On a related note have they left Georgia yet?

If I may alter the timeline of events a bit and say that France & Germany didn't deny Georgia NATO membership....

Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation. There was a skirmish between Georgians and Ossetians prior to the launch of the attack. Russia responds the same way they did. Europe, except Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) refuses to go to go to war with Russia. Should the US declare on Russia?

McCain/Palin said "Yes!"
Obama/Biden said "No!"

Oh, and remember that you don't know what Russia may do as a result, they may give nukes to the "Axis of Evil" as a result of the US Declaration. Also keep in mind that China's very pissed off at Georgia - "how dare they start a war during OUR Olympics!!!" They could also launch nukes, so umm, yeah....

After you answer Yes/No, if you want, type in as to what you'd do.
It's not a question of should. We would be required to do so, thanks to the NATO charter, which regards any attack on any member state as an attack on the entire alliance.

But you're missing one little thing: Had Georgia already been a member of NATO, Russia would never had attacked.

If I may alter the timeline of events a bit and say that France & Germany didn't deny Georgia NATO membership....

Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation. There was a skirmish between Georgians and Ossetians prior to the launch of the attack. Russia responds the same way they did. Europe, except Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) refuses to go to go to war with Russia. Should the US declare on Russia?

McCain/Palin said "Yes!"
Obama/Biden said "No!"

Oh, and remember that you don't know what Russia may do as a result, they may give nukes to the "Axis of Evil" as a result of the US Declaration. Also keep in mind that China's very pissed off at Georgia - "how dare they start a war during OUR Olympics!!!" They could also launch nukes, so umm, yeah....

After you answer Yes/No, if you want, type in as to what you'd do.

Russia need to be destroyed. They are the embodiment of evil. Jesus Christ wants us to destroy evil, so he can set up his kingdom from here in America!

Hmm good point. I probably should have read the clause first.

In which case war is reserved for the case where Russia is hell-bent against leaving.

On a related note have they left Georgia yet?

IMO while I like the idea of Georgia joining NATO, I don't think they're ready nor are any more of a legitimate candidate than (say) Nepal.

They've left, mostly...
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7653219.stm

But I don't think they'll ever leave South Ossetia.

As I understand the OP's senario, Georgia would be the agressor, so no.

If Georgia was the victim of agression, its a very tough call. Betraying an allie and leaving Nato toothless in the face of Russian agression vs the most destructive war in history, one potentially fatal to our species.

First of all...what was wrong with kicking the Cubans out of Grenada? Would you like the Communists to have an airfield which could strike the United States?

Haiti...well I believe that was a peacekeeping operation, was it not? Are you opposed to stopping civil wars or do you like perpetuating them and seeing wanton slaughter and bloodshed?

1. So you agree with Colombia/Panama?

2. It's been said by other posters, but Cuba is what, 90 miles from Florida? Even without Grenada, Cuba could have hit anywhere south of Cincinnati/D.C. with 1960's technology.

3. Stopping the violence, fine. Forcing the leaders of Haiti to accede to your political rules before placing them at the head of the country, and placing pro-western guys like Aristide in office over the will of the people...sounds a little like bullying.

We're still a good country though...Ancient Rome would have just absorbed all of them into the empire. God only knows what the Reds would have done (see Cuba), and the last major land-conquering Asian group were the Japanese in the 30's-40's. They definitely went a lot further than bullying.

We're just not 100% innocent of it, just better than most others.

Yes, war between the two major nuclear powers is a GREAT idea.

NO

and this is why we shouldnt bring georgia or ukraine into nato.

Hmm good point. I probably should have read the clause first.

In which case war is reserved for the case where Russia is hell-bent against leaving.

On a related note have they left Georgia yet?
No the Russians haven't left Georgia yet. At least the last I heard. Depending on what "Georgia" means of course.

Despite what the West and Saakashvili say the Russians seem to be keeping South Ossetia and Abkhazia after recognising their "independence" (like NATO/the EU are keeping Kosovo).

But there are still Russian troops in areas of the rest of Georgia (ie undisputed Georgian territory or "Georgia proper") near the de facto border and around the port of Poti too, who hindered Western peacekeepers the other day.

NO

and this is why we shouldnt bring georgia or ukraine into nato.

I disagree. I think it is exactly why we should bring them into NATO, so Russia cannot war with them.

Russia has shown it is willing to act imperialistic. In order to defend the interests of everyone in the region--that is, NOT wanting to be under an imperialistic Russia's thumb--we should bring them into the alliance, because Russia will not be willing to attack NATO member states.

This may have the unfortunate result of potentially proving Russia's claim that NATO is an "Anti-Russia alliance" however...

Russia need to be destroyed. They are the embodiment of evil. Jesus Christ wants us to destroy evil, so he can set up his kingdom from here in America!
Are you being serious or is this a parody?

NO

and this is why we shouldnt bring georgia or ukraine into nato.

I doubt Russia will try to cause a world war. Isn't it more likely that including them in NATO would protect against further Russian agression?

This may have the unfortunate result of potentially proving Russia's claim that NATO is an "Anti-Russia alliance" however...

Because it, you know, basically is?

I disagree. I think it is exactly why we should bring them into NATO, so Russia cannot war with them.

That just gives carte blanche to prissy little ex-USSR politicians that are looking to boost popularity at home by antagonising Russia..... like Saakashvili.

I'm not in a NATO member country myself.... but I sure wouldn't want to be a member of NATO if there's a shed load of ex-USSR republics in it too.

Of course not. Georgia is one of those countries who have a president who deeply seeks to piss the globe off.


Oh, by the way, put Ireland in the nations which don't declare war. We all know their strict neutral policy (that's why they turned down NATO).

Of course not. Georgia is one of those countries who have a president who deeply seeks to piss the globe off.


Oh, by the way, put Ireland in the nations which don't declare war. We all know their strict neutral policy (that's why they turned down NATO).

I always thought they turned down NATO membership because the UK was a member and they didnt really want to have to defend them. Also they don't border Russia.

I always thought they turned down NATO membership because the UK was a member and they didnt really want to have to defend them.
No, they turned down membership because they are politically neutral since independence. Which leads to being militarily neutral. Nothing to do with what the UK does.


Also they don't border Russia.

Neither do most NATO members.

War is so overrated these days.

If one must fight, let it be done in bed. That´s the best war.

War is so overrated these days.

If one must fight, let it be done in bed. That´s the best war.

I couldn't agree more Yuki-Chan. ;)

No, they turned down membership because they are politically neutral since independence. Which leads to being militarily neutral. Nothing to do with what the UK does.




Neither do most NATO members.

Ireland also hasn't had to fight a non-English speaking enemy since the Vikings.

No, most aren't. But ALL Nato members are within 2800 km, or (if you will) far less than even an old Bison Bomber's round trip range when fully loaded.

If the Russians or anyone else for that matter got in an war with an nato country, the US would be drawn in along with the rest of the nations. W

What would be really twisted would be lets say Britain or france attacked lets say Cuba or another country in the Americas. the US would be bound by treaty to go to war with them as they are apart of the Organization of American States which includes every country in the Americas excluding Canada. Theres an defense clause that states that if an extra Americas power attacks any country in the Organization, all the nations go to war with that country or countries.

That just gives carte blanche to prissy little ex-USSR politicians that are looking to boost popularity at home by antagonising Russia..... like Saakashvili.

I'm not in a NATO member country myself.... but I sure wouldn't want to be a member of NATO if there's a shed load of ex-USSR republics in it too.

Well, to be frank, it's either do that, or let Russia get away with imperialism. In the twenty-first century, that's simply not acceptable. We're a global community, not a bunch of fighting monkeys.

Those ex-USSR republics need to advance and join the rest of us, and they can't do that if they're constantly cut off and recrushed by Russia.

(Besides, NATO is mainly a military alliance anyway. It's not like it's an economic union or something.)

Romulan Republic: No. It was an alliance against Soviet aggression. Nowadays it just exists to defend its members against any threat, not just Russia.

Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not gaming for war against Russia here; I know as well as anyone that could go nuclear, and as I've exposited before, we can't allow that to happen. That's precisely why we have to shut down imperialistic attempts now, while Russia can't really follow through on them, then wait and wait and wait. Waiting is what got us something like Nazi Germany attacking its neighbors and crushing Europe. We can't do that sort of thing again, not if we're going to build a truly peaceful world. (Which the Russians are fully welcome to be a part of, of course. They have to be willing to do it, however, rather than try to strike their own path.)

Well, to be frank, it's either do that, or let Russia get away with imperialism. In the twenty-first century, that's simply not acceptable.

Far be it for me to be the one pointing this out but....... pot.... kettle?

We're a global community, not a bunch of fighting monkeys.
Seriously, there's not much of a difference. We may like to think there is, but there's really not. Unless it's in NATO's interest (and that means weighing up all the pros and many cons) in having unstable ex- Soviet Republics in, I fail to see the point. I doubt NATO members (bar the US potentially) will ever want them in - especially given piss poor democratic and human rights records. If the the US wants to protect ex- Soviet Republics, then they'll simply sign a series of bi-lateral or maybe multi-lateral treaties.

Far be it for me to be the one pointing this out but....... pot.... kettle?
Indeed. American imperialism isn't acceptable either.


Seriously, there's not much of a difference. We may like to think there is, but there's really not. Unless it's in NATO's interest (and that means weighing up all the pros and many cons) in having unstable ex- Soviet Republics in, I fail to see the point. I doubt NATO members (bar the US potentially) will ever want them in - especially given piss poor democratic and human rights records. If the the US wants to protect ex- Soviet Republics, then they'll simply sign a series of bi-lateral or maybe multi-lateral treaties.

That's unfortunately true.

They need to shape up, but they need support to do it too. They can't do it all on their own, and if we just throw them to the wolves, as it were, they're just going to keep getting more dictators and more excuses for abuse, etc. The best way to counter a dictator is to remove the main reason they're able to gain power: fear.

If the Russians or anyone else for that matter got in an war with an nato country, the US would be drawn in along with the rest of the nations. W

What would be really twisted would be lets say Britain or france attacked lets say Cuba or another country in the Americas. the US would be bound by treaty to go to war with them as they are apart of the Organization of American States which includes every country in the Americas excluding Canada. Theres an defense clause that states that if an extra Americas power attacks any country in the Organization, all the nations go to war with that country or countries.

Wait, whut? Link?

Wait, whut? Link?

http://www.oas.org/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organization_of_American_States

The Organization of American States (OAS, or, as it is known in the three other official languages, OEA) is an international organization, headquartered in Washington, D.C., United States.[1] Its members are the thirty-five independent states of the Americas.

Including Canada.

Well, to be frank, it's either do that, or let Russia get away with imperialism. In the twenty-first century, that's simply not acceptable.

Like that's stopped the "free world" from doing the same.

If the US goes to war with Russia, someone is going to end up getting nuked.

If the US goes to war with Russia, everyone is going to end up getting nuked.
fixed

Like that's stopped the "free world" from doing the same.

It has for the most part. The only country in the "free world" really doing that anymore is the United States, and, as you can see, I don't support that action anymore than I do of Russia's.

It has for the most part. The only country in the "free world" really doing that anymore is the United States, and, as you can see, I don't support that action anymore than I do of Russia's.

Only in the last 30 odd years, and only in terms of large scale conflict. Mostly, the current world order keeps most of the European powers from fielding a sufficiently large army and deployment force capable of playing the imperialism game.

Give it another 30-50 years or so, a serious environmental and/or economic catastrophe and the lessons of the 1940s will have been forgotten.

Wow I cannot believe tha tanybody voted "No". I am even more surprised that the majority did. You do realize that NATO is a joint defense treaty whereby if one NATO nation is attacked it is an attack on all right?

Only in the last 30 odd years, and only in terms of large scale conflict. Mostly, the current world order keeps most of the European powers from fielding a sufficiently large army and deployment force capable of playing the imperialism game.

Give it another 30-50 years or so, a serious environmental and/or economic catastrophe and the lessons of the 1940s will have been forgotten.

I doubt that. Europe has learned its lesson. They're not about to do it again, not when they're far better off with their cooperation scheme.

If Georgia was a NATO member, then yes. That's what the organisation was based on. I would however suggest looking at the charter, which outlines the decision mechanisms for such a case. Most importantly, it's unlikely that if Georgia was to launch a unilateral military operation of the kind it did, that could be used as a sufficient reason to decline helping them.

This wasn't a case of poor Georgia being invaded by big, mean Russia, it was a case of everyone engaging in a competition for 'Idiot of the Year'.

And for that reason, I'm not a fan of the idea of getting Georgia into NATO in the first place.

The next thing we need is another cold war or worse an all out war with a super power. I don't think though we would go into a nuclear war. Neither power is that dumb to destroy the world and it would not be a victory.

As grim as it sounds, I should hope so.

By not adhering in our commitment to our NATO, all remaining international credibility the US would have would be blown straight to hell. NATO is our terminal alliance.

And for that reason, I'm not a fan of the idea of getting Georgia into NATO in the first place.

I'm more of the line of thought that Geogia could actually be more easily controlled if it were in the big tent of NATO, rather than without.

I doubt that. Europe has learned its lesson. They're not about to do it again, not when they're far better off with their cooperation scheme.

Maybe, maybe not. We are seeing a resurgence of ultra-nationalists ideals in certain parts of Europe after all.

Maybe, maybe not. We are seeing a resurgence of ultra-nationalists ideals in certain parts of Europe after all.

In a few pockets. We'd probably see less of it if Europe would stop passing hate speech laws, banning things like Holocaust Denial and actually fully open up discussion...

But I still wouldn't count it as much as of yet. If it resurges in, say, France, the United Kingdom, Germany, etc, then it'll be something to worry about.

Austria, not so much.

In a few pockets. We'd probably see less of it if Europe would stop passing hate speech laws, banning things like Holocaust Denial and actually fully open up discussion...
There is a lot of discussion in Germany about the Nazi era, about right-wing parties, about immigration etc etc. The laws aren't stopping anything, and they're not the motivation for people to vote for NPD-type parties.

This sort of thing (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24416160-661,00.html) is a much bigger problem. From my personal experience, if anything the number of people with racist views in Germany is bigger than that in Australia. And this groundswell can be tapped by the sufficiently unscroupled type of person.

There is a lot of discussion in Germany about the Nazi era, about right-wing parties, about immigration etc etc. The laws aren't stopping anything, and they're not the motivation for people to vote for NPD-type parties.
Good.

This sort of thing (http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,24416160-661,00.html) is a much bigger problem. From my personal experience, if anything the number of people with racist views in Germany is bigger than that in Australia. And this groundswell can be tapped by the sufficiently unscroupled type of person.

Not so good, but not surprising either, given the situations. A heavy enough economic crash and we'd see a repeat of the Nazis--though I doubt using the same name--and something similar in Australia.

I don't rate that as anywhere near as likely. After all, economies are much more resilient now than they were back in the 30s, and we're a lot better informed about cutting off these sort of things at the head. (I'd like to think so anyway.)

If it resurges in, say, France

It has. Sarkozy is big on nationalistic sentiment.

it has. Sarkozy is big on nationalistic sentiment.

Le FRANCE WILL GROW LARGER

Not so good, but not surprising either, given the situations. A heavy enough economic crash and we'd see a repeat of the Nazis--though I doubt using the same name--and something similar in Australia.
It's not necessary that there be a full-on revolutionary change of government. But the undercurrent of "there are too many foreigners here", while not uttered in polite conversation most of the time, is basically what TAI's champions live off. Sure, they have economic policies and other things they talk about at times, but a big chunk of their support comes purely from exploiting racist feelings in the electorate.

It's an unspoken bond - they don't use too openly racist language, and the voters don't either, but both sides know what's going on. It's only occasionally that you hear of a slip of the tongue, which is followed by two days newspaper scandal and nothing more.

It has. Sarkozy is big on nationalistic sentiment.
Eh...I dunno...Sarkozy's not enough. Really, for what we're talking we'd need full on support from the majority in parliament as well.
It's not necessary that there be a full-on revolutionary change of government. But the undercurrent of "there are too many foreigners here", while not uttered in polite conversation most of the time, is basically what TAI's champions live off. Sure, they have economic policies and other things they talk about at times, but a big chunk of their support comes purely from exploiting racist feelings in the electorate.

It's an unspoken bond - they don't use too openly racist language, and the voters don't either, but both sides know what's going on. It's only occasionally that you hear of a slip of the tongue, which is followed by two days newspaper scandal and nothing more.

I don't think that would be enough though. We're talking about a huge change in policies from the way things are run now, and I honestly don't see that happening without such a huge gigantic change in the way everything is going that it can't possibly be avoided. Remember, everytime this sort of thing happened in Europe before, it was during times where people were a lot less informed--or capable of being informed--than they are now. Television and especially the internet has drastically changed that. It's not anywhere near as easy to shut people up and such. (It'd be easier if the systems weren't in place, but once in place they're very hard to remove.)

I don't think that would be enough though.
Oh, I was just talking generally. I actually agree with you that it's very unlikely for Europe to go all-out imperialist again. Their voters don't generally have territorial ambitions, so the most you'd see is the odd intervention in some poor but resource-rich country, alá France's bombing of the Ivorian airforce (though that had different reasons).

Russia's interests in Georgia were, at least in part, more old-school than that and had a lot to do with things not looking symmetrical enough to them on a map.

Oh, I was just talking generally. I actually agree with you that it's very unlikely for Europe to go all-out imperialist again. Their voters don't generally have territorial ambitions, so the most you'd see is the odd intervention in some poor but resource-rich country, alá France's bombing of the Ivorian airforce (though that had different reasons).

Russia's interests in Georgia were, at least in part, more old-school than that and had a lot to do with things not looking symmetrical enough to them on a map.

Indeed.

(Though if I were making a symmetrical map, I'd cut off that whole area near the Caucuses. That's just an ugly bulge, aesthetically speaking.)

Going back to the original post. I was kinda surprised so many of you went ahead and quoted the "we must defend Georgia" NATO thingy, when my hypo said this:

"Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation. There was a skirmish between Georgians and Ossetians prior to the launch of the attack. Russia responds the same way they did."

This portrays Georgia as the agressor, as least to me. Russia responds not invades, but responds. So on a technically you aren't bound by the NATO treaty.

Also I've noticed a couple errors by some of the posters. One guy wrote "Russia wouldn't dare!" Wrongo: http://unian.net/eng/news/news-272576.html Also, Turkey wouldn't aid, let's remember the Turks actually blocking off American ships delivering "aid" to Georgia. If Turkey was to join the war, the Russians would arm the Kurds and Turkey'd be in a Civil War, just like the Brits did in WWI when Turkey joined. Finally, Russia and Georgia are either equally guilty, or Georgia is more guilty, that's the way my hypo was written. We're not talking about a Russian Invasion of Georgia cause Putin or Medvedev felt like it. So now what do you guys think?

This portrays Georgia as the agressor, as least to me. Russia responds not invades, but responds. So on a technically you aren't bound by the NATO treaty.

Only if we accept the Russian interpretation that an attack on South Ossetia is an attack on Russia, which the US and most of NATO have shown do not. NATO would not be obligated to intervene on behalf of Georgia in their conflict with South Ossetia, but unless Georgia carried out attacks on sovereign Russian soil, even the word "responds" becomes indicative of interpretation. According to the stance that many of the nations of NATO adopted, they did not agree with Russia's interpretation of the events, and decided that they viewed it as Russian interference in an internal Georgian affair. Which would lead me to the conclusion that NATO would indeed interpret it as an attack on a member nation.

Sdaeriji - the question is my hypo. Can I get get to determine who the agressor is in my hypo? Assume the Georgians attacked Russian soil if that's what it takes for you to see that Russia's not the agressor.

Sdaeriji - the question is my hypo. Can I get get to determine who the agressor is in my hypo? Assume the Georgians attacked Russian soil if that's what it takes for you to see that Russia's not the agressor.
Wait...you're asking us to tell you who the aggressor is, assuming that Russia isn't it?

Anyways, as the invasion of Iraq demonstrated, NATO members can go on their own little wars without triggering any defense clause in the treaty that would require other members to go along. If Georgia were in NATO, and were to launch an attack, it is conceivable that there would be no obligation for NATO members to come to its aid. Nonetheless, there would be strong language used, and sanctions would probably be considered much more seriously, were Russia to take the response too far.

This portrays Georgia as the agressor, as least to me. Russia responds not invades, but responds. So on a technically you aren't bound by the NATO treaty.
Sdaeriji - the question is my hypo. Can I get get to determine who the agressor is in my hypo? Assume the Georgians attacked Russian soil if that's what it takes for you to see that Russia's not the agressor.

Then you totally failed in wording your original hypo. Every NATO member and UN recognizes South-Ossetia as Georgian territory, so if Russia would invade it (for whatever reason), then it would be invasion against NATO member. On other hand Georgia(or any other NATO member) launching unprovoked attack on Russian territory, would probably bring no direct NATO support unless Russian retaliation is considered to be too bloody.

Olmedreca;14076648']Then you totally failed in wording your original hypo. Every NATO member and UN recognizes South-Ossetia as Georgian territory, so if Russia would invade it (for whatever reason), then it would be invasion against NATO member.

Unless Russia uses a justification such as humanitarian intervention..... which it did use... kinda. In that case, the scenario gets complicated as no one wants to start a shooting war over what may, or may not be in defence of ethnic cleansing.

Unless Russia uses a justification such as humanitarian intervention..... which it did use... kinda. In that case, the scenario gets complicated as no one wants to start a shooting war over what may, or may not be in defence of ethnic cleansing.

Except all the evidence shows it was actually the Georgians being cleansed in those areas.

Georgia launches a brutal attack on Tskhinvali. The Russians launched no provocation. There was a skirmish between Georgians and Ossetians prior to the launch of the attack. Russia responds the same way they did. Europe, except Poland and the Baltic States (Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania) refuses to go to go to war with Russia. Should the US declare on Russia? It's a clear cut situation: Georgia was the aggressor, NATO is not obliged to step in.

Wow I cannot believe tha tanybody voted "No". I am even more surprised that the majority did. You do realize that NATO is a joint defense treaty whereby if one NATO nation is attacked it is an attack on all right?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14073498&postcount=20

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14073498&postcount=20

So why is it that people think that NATO should not rally to the defense of a member? It just seems absurd that anybody would vote "No" in this poll. It is as bizarre as saying should the United States not defend California if California was attacked by the Russians.

Edit: It seems that I missed out on something. My post was based on the premise that Russia attacks Georgia after Georgia becomes a NATO member. It seems that this is really a debate over who began the fight between Georgia and Russia.

So why is it that people think that NATO should not rally to the defense of a member? It just seems absurd that anybody would vote "No" in this poll. It is as bizarre as saying should the United States not defend California if California was attacked by the Russians.

Edit: It seems that I missed out on something. My post was based on the premise that Russia attacks Georgia after Georgia becomes a NATO member. It seems that this is really a debate over who began the fight between Georgia and Russia.

It's not bizarre at all:
* Article IV of the Treaty of Brussels clearly states that member countries are in North America and Europe. Georigia is in neither, ergo NATO members are *not* required to go to war with Russia even IF Georgia is a NATO member.

That is, unless the Treaty of Brussels is amended when/if Georgia ascended. Which is exactly why NATO was not required to attack Argentina over the Falklands or Iran for the US Embassy.

I would like to point out that if Russia had wanted to they could have gone to war with Georgia in the actual conflict because Georgia killed Russian Peacekeepers whe they began their attack in South Ossetia which Russia could have claimed was an act of war and rolled over Georgia's military and conquered the country with nothing but some angry letters as a response.

They probably did not do this because Russia likes to have buffer states, they are no longer looking for literal conquest but instead seem to be looking for political control. The Georgian government was becming increasingly anti-Russian but now that Russia has shown the people of Georgia that such a political maneuver is dangerous a more moderate Georgian government is more likely to be seen in the near future.

Ok fair enough. I didn't phrase my hypo correctly. I'll rephrase it.

I would like to point out that if Russia had wanted to they could have gone to war with Georgia in the actual conflict because Georgia killed Russian Peacekeepers whe they began their attack in South Ossetia which Russia could have claimed was an act of war and rolled over Georgia's military and conquered the country with nothing but some angry letters as a response.

They probably did not do this because Russia likes to have buffer states,...Were we watching the same war? I could swear that's exactly what they did up until the angry letters started flooding in.

Were we watching the same war? I could swear that's exactly what they did up until the angry letters started flooding in.

Actually Russian armored forces stopped advancing prior to major foreign outcry. Also, I think this is referred to as a police action.

No we shouldn't, well we should, but we will all die in nuclear fire, and frankly, that would suck, and loosing Georgia to mother Russia isn't worth that.

Protecting Georgia from Mother Russia for that matter...........Itll be realy bad.

I would like to point out that if Russia had wanted to they could have gone to war with Georgia in the actual conflict [...]
The Georgian government was becming increasingly anti-Russian but now that Russia has shown the people of Georgia that such a political maneuver is dangerous a more moderate Georgian government is more likely to be seen in the near future.
If Putin wanted Saakashvili dead, he would have a fatal heart stroke even before Putin took the presidential position. There was no need to have a war if he wanted to take down the Georgian government, or even to create a buffer state.

This time, probably, things are what they seem - there was a Georgian attack on Ossetia, and there was a response. And clearly, Putin knew the detail of the attack well beforehand; KGB's power in ex-USSR republics is too strong to let such a thing slip through. The point of playing along was showing, clearly, that if a border nation attempts to overstep its authority (such as attacking the "Georgian Kosovo"), it will be thrown back in a couple days, and no political actions can help.
Actually, I think it was intended to have a bit of international outcry to show the willingness to act regardless of it - interesting how Russia let the media be dominated by the Georgian side at first, until releasing footage shining more light into the matter. Killing a whole flock of birds with one stone, without even being the one to throw it.

If Putin wanted Saakashvili dead, I think Saakashvili would have found out all about the properties of Polonium first hand. Funny thing, I remember asking one of my friends as to why he didn't kill the enemy leader at some strategy game. My friend replied "why? He sucks so much, he's perfect for me". The problem with the Bush Administration is that they'll support any idiot who waves an American Flag. I mean Saakashvili? What the fuck does he bring to the table to help the US? And don't say oil, beacause if American leadership had any brains power, the US would be oil independent.

You know how the West has Chavez to troll everybody? Saakashvilli is our troll. And I HATE that stupid grin he always has on his face. I think the only time it went way is when he thought those Georgian "Frogfoot" bombers were ours, and he freaked out.





grin related.

http://www.turksolu.org/162/foto/mihail-saakasvili.jpg


EDIT: He hasn't lost his baby fat yet