NationStates Jolt Archive

Things haven't been going good for the US lately. Some Chickenhawks, to shift attention away from the problems at home, are even suggesting that Russia is just like Al Qaeda, most notably Rupert Murdoch, who believes that Russia's incursion into Georgia is just like the blast at the Pakistani Hotel. " 'In this promising new century, we are still seeing naked, heartless aggression — whether it comes from a terrorist bombing in Islamabad or a Russian invasion of Georgia,' Murdoch said." He's also the proud owner of Fox News that always gives two sides, Bush's and Cheney's. Now it's pretty damn clear that the US must take down Al Qaeda. It was an inadvertently created mess and it must be cleaned up. But here Murdoch and the Neocon gang are even suggesting to go after Russia as well. I firmly believe that the US neither has the money, nor the ability to challenge Russia on Russian soil AND keep up its domestic growth at the same time. Nor do I think that Russia warrants a comparison to Al Qaeda.

In addition, the current meddling has not gone well either. Russia, backed by India, China, Brazil, Argentina and many, many others, 6 NATO members amongst them, ensured that Kosovo will not be an independent nation. Georgia has recently been trashed in the war against Russia, where even the New York Times admitted that Georgians attacked. Flush with two military victories (Second Chechen War and 2008 South Ossetian War) and the economic gains (and corresponding salary/pension increases and tax decreases - tax in Russia is 13%) the United Russia Government Coalition is at an all time high on approval ratings. In addition they've adopted a reciprocal approach (that was adopted but several previous Russian Leaders), ensuring that if US meddles in Russia's affairs, Russia will meddle in US affairs. If US leaves Russia alone, then Russia will leave the United States alone. Reciprocity - basing your response off of someone else's Foreign Policy, works very well to get other nations to treat you right.

I didn't realize that Kosovo and Georgia were part of Russia.

I didn't realize that Kosovo and Georgia were part of Russia.

Kosovo part of Serbia - Serbia allied with Russia. Georgians attacked the Roki Tunnel with cluster bombs, that's definitely part of Russia.

Stay out of it and let them kill themselves.

We totally need to crush Russia at chess tournament after chess tournament after chess tournament. Vengeance for 1937-2007*!

* Barring that gap 1972-1975...

It makes life pretty interesting if US gets all up in Russia's business. Who knows what could happen!? Life over in .091 seconds!! BOOM!

We totally need to crush Russia at chess tournament after chess tournament after chess tournament. Vengeance for 1937-2007*!

* Barring that gap 1972-1975...

HAHA. Well kicking Russia's ass in chess would not count as meddling in their affairs! Nor is kicking their ass in hockey. Chess and hockey - two things Russians are truly great it, there's more I am sure though. Soccer - is not one of them, yet....

Kosovo part of Serbia - Serbia allied with Russia. Georgians attacked the Roki Tunnel with cluster bombs, that's definitely part of Russia.

ally does not equal part of Russia. More over Kosovo independence seems the only acceptable solution. Perhaps in Serbia didn't take such a hard line stance (of no independence)they could negotiate those certain areas(with more Serbs) returned for recognition.

I did not realize the US was in command Of Georgia.

ally does not equal part of Russia. More over Kosovo independence seems the only acceptable solution. Perhaps in Serbia didn't take such a hard line stance (of no independence)they could negotiate those certain areas(with more Serbs) returned for recognition.

I did not realize the US was in command Of Georgia.

Well if NATO operations didn't result in the bombing of Belgrade, the burning of hundreds of Orthodox Churches and 200,000 refugees....

How do you think Georgia afforded the $1 billion military budget?

Hopefully the space station will keep America & Russia working together.

The United States should stay out of the conflicts of Russia. Our economy is suffering... to those who hawks who wish to intervene: Do you want the economy destroyed w/ gov't. rendered incapable of bailing y'all out, as I know some of you are LOADED, and risk losing it all?

Furthermore, do you think it is wise to fight a war on thre fronts? No, it is not. We are spreading ourselves too thin. This is not the time to attack nor meddle. I say attack and make references to warfare as the poll brought it up as a possibility as well as our continued meddling may in fact be construed as a threat by Russia. If Russian decided to attack the US for recognizing Kosovo's right of independence due to the principle of self-determination, then America is in the right for meddling in Russia's affairs. But until then, NO!

Lastly, concerning Rupert Murdoch, explain to me why his opinion matters as he is neither a foreign ambassador nor an American citizen (btw Dubya believes it is not necessary to listen to either, so that does beg the question why).

Well if NATO operations didn't result in the bombing of Belgrade, the burning of hundreds of Orthodox Churches and 200,000 refugees....
Perhaps if Serbia didn't take away Kosovo's Autonomy status, Or ignore the referendum with 90% of the people of Kosovo wanting Independence.
but perhaps it will rain oil and we will never have to worry about fuel prices again. Perhaps is a dangerous word it would be better if we worked with what is reality now. Kosovo will be independent

How do you think Georgia afforded the $1 billion military budget?

Aid does not equate to control.

Yes, because it's hilarious.

Perhaps if Serbia didn't take away Kosovo's Autonomy status, Or ignore the referendum with 90% of the people of Kosovo wanting Independence.
but perhaps it will rain oil and we will never have to worry about fuel prices again. Perhaps is a dangerous word it would be better if we worked with what is reality now. Kosovo will be independent

Aid does not equate to control.

You mean 30%? You may wish to check out the huge amount of people that voted in Kosovo. Oh wait, only about 30-40% of the Albanian population actually voted for Independence. The rest boycotted/ignored the vote because they wanted to be part of Serbia/didn't care. Maybe 90% of those who voted do, but less then half of the country voted. That's not a mandate, it's not even a boydate.

And aid may not equal control, but military aid to a country openly hostile to Russia is meddling in their affairs, unless providing aid to that country is crucial to US security, which it clearly wasn't.

The United States should stay out of the conflicts of Russia. Our economy is suffering... to those who hawks who wish to intervene: Do you want the economy destroyed w/ gov't. rendered incapable of bailing y'all out, as I know some of you are LOADED, and risk losing it all?

Furthermore, do you think it is wise to fight a war on thre fronts? No, it is not. We are spreading ourselves too thin. This is not the time to attack nor meddle. I say attack and make references to warfare as the poll brought it up as a possibility as well as our continued meddling may in fact be construed as a threat by Russia. If Russian decided to attack the US for recognizing Kosovo's right of independence due to the principle of self-determination, then America is in the right for meddling in Russia's affairs. But until then, NO!

Lastly, concerning Rupert Murdoch, explain to me why his opinion matters as he is neither a foreign ambassador nor an American citizen (btw Dubya believes it is not necessary to listen to either, so that does beg the question why).

Murdoch is a powerful and influential figure in the media. He was one of the leaders that parroted and forced their underlings to parrot the line "Saddam has WMDs" and "bin Laden and Hussein are allies". Seeing him trying to start the same thing with Russia is scary. Russia's not Iraq, they can fight back.

Also, how is Kosovo crucial to American Security Interests? I mean if the Russians attack Poland or Germany, then US will not have a choice, but Kosovo? They're not even in NATO and there's no treaty binding the US to protect Kosovo. (In reference to Poland, moving conventional missiles from Russian territorry to Russian territorry doesn't equate to an attack.)

Hopefully the space station will keep America & Russia working together.

They are working together on that and it's great to see :D Spacestation and hockey. And maybe chess :D

Yes, because it's hilarious.

For the lulz? Fair enough. :)

Interestingly enough, the Russians did support the Americans once, perhaps they would consider it again, and although I'm not a huge CNN fan, here it is:
http://archives.cnn.com/2001/US/09/25/ret.russia.cooperation/index.html

I think if the US does continue to meddle in Russian affairs, Russia gets to wear a rubber yeti mask, call itself Old Man Winters, and mutter "I would have gotten away with it, if it wasn't for you crazy kids"

I just want to know -- how exactly is Russia a "threat" to the United States?

I just want to know -- how exactly is Russia a "threat" to the United States?

Assuming that the US was Energy Independent, I would love to know that too!

i think the america i live in absolutely needs to learn that the rest of the world does not exist for the sole purpose of kissing its ass.

i think obama is at least a little closer to figuring that out then anyone we've had in (american) political leadership for most of the past 30 years. i don't know if even he understands that completely, but i can and do hope that he does at least relatively.

Assuming that the US was Energy Independent, I would love to know that too!

The U.S. isn't energy independent, and isn't going to be anytime soon.

I didn't realize that Kosovo and Georgia were part of Russia.
Only takes 2 tank battalions.

Kosovo part of Serbia - Serbia allied with Russia. Georgians attacked the Roki Tunnel with cluster bombs, that's definitely part of Russia.

Btw, the italian tv aired some leaks from the upcoming OSCE report about the Russo-Georgian war. Looks like the report will blame Georgia for "an unprovoked attack on Abkhazian towns" or something like that.

I find it hilarious that a Russian is complaining about the US meddling in Russian affairs right after the Russian President delivers a speech about how Russia wants to meddle in US-Polish affairs...

I find it hilarious that a Russian is complaining about the US meddling in Russian affairs right after the Russian President delivers a speech about how Russia wants to meddle in US-Polish affairs...

You beat me to it!

Or Russia meddling in the Ukraine and the whole of Europe by threatening to turn off the gas? HMM.

Well, if USA government are ready to actively oppose the imperialistic aggression of Russian capitalist tyrants (of course without starting new world war), I am all for it. But I fear that it will prefer to close its eyes on actions of Putin/Medvedev and pursuit its own imperialist interests somewhere else, where it will require mach less efforts.

Shofercia, I know there is no treaty or any security obligations binding US to Kosovo. I was just mentioning a hypothetical scenario, which would be stupider than Vietnam or Iraq imo. Btw, I happened to notice a lot of my old ICU buddies have been contributing to this thread:)

I find it hilarious that a Russian is complaining about the US meddling in Russian affairs right after the Russian President delivers a speech about how Russia wants to meddle in US-Polish affairs...Reverse of the reverse? :D

I find it hilarious that a Russian is complaining about the US meddling in Russian affairs right after the Russian President delivers a speech about how Russia wants to meddle in US-Polish affairs...

Here's what I don't from people like this:

1. US points out to Russia that there's no reason to complain about conventional missiles being moved around NATO territorry
2. US bitches about Russia moving conventional missiles on Russian Territorry.

Double standards much?

You beat me to it!

Or Russia meddling in the Ukraine and the whole of Europe by threatening to turn off the gas? HMM.

Oh my goodness. Those pesky Russians actually selling gas to Ukraine at MARKET PRICES and threatening to find another trade partner if Ukraine doesn't repay their debts. How dare they practice Capitalism on a government that we like?!

Here's what I don't from people like this:

1. US points out to Russia that there's no reason to complain about conventional missiles being moved around NATO territorry
2. US bitches about Russia moving conventional missiles on Russian Territorry.

Double standards much?1. Russia bitches about the US doing anything in Eastern Europe.
...Is this news? :p

Shofercia, I know there is no treaty or any security obligations binding US to Kosovo. I was just mentioning a hypothetical scenario, which would be stupider than Vietnam or Iraq imo. Btw, I happened to notice a lot of my old ICU buddies have been contributing to this thread:)

:D But I do disagree with you on one point, very few things can be stupider then Iraq. Even if the US wins the War in Iraq, the US lost its superpower status there and made Saddam a hero in everyone country that the US invaded/rigged elections in.

1. Russia bitches about the US doing anything in Eastern Europe.
...Is this news? :p

Russia didn't bitch about US helping out Greece with the Marshall Plan, or Belarus being given a chance to join the EU. :tongue:

The U.S. isn't energy independent, and isn't going to be anytime soon.

But how is that Russia's fault? Plus until the US energy reserves are gone, Russia's still not a threat.

Here's what I don't from people like this:

1. US points out to Russia that there's no reason to complain about conventional missiles being moved around NATO territorry
2. US bitches about Russia moving conventional missiles on Russian Territorry.

Double standards much?
I haven't seen an official response verbal or nonverbal from the US concerning Medvedev's speech, but I'm sure you have, or else you would be lying. I welcome you to show it to the rest of us. I do however know that should the US complain about Russia deploying something to counter a missile shield that's not supposed to stop Russian missiles in the first place, it would not be a double standard, seeing as the US wasn't openly threatening Russia, whereas Russia was openly threatening Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US with their system.

I haven't seen an official response verbal or nonverbal from the US concerning Medvedev's speech, but I'm sure you have, or else you would be lying. I welcome you to show it to the rest of us. I do however know that should the US complain about Russia deploying something to counter a missile shield that's not supposed to stop Russian missiles in the first place, it would not be a double standard, seeing as the US wasn't openly threatening Russia, whereas Russia was openly threatening Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US with their system.

The Economist Article posted by the Atlantian Islands. All the bullshit coming from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. By US bitching, I meant Neocon Media - and you instantly pull the official card. Nice strawman there. Also, didn't the US claim that the missile shield wasn't against Russia? Then why worry about Russians countering it, I mean if it wasn't agaisnt Russia, why worry at all? Russians hate Al Qaeda just as much as the US does. Also, a statement from a pissed off Col. General that has no missile command isn't a threat.

I haven't seen an official response verbal or nonverbal from the US concerning Medvedev's speech, but I'm sure you have, or else you would be lying. I welcome you to show it to the rest of us. I do however know that should the US complain about Russia deploying something to counter a missile shield that's not supposed to stop Russian missiles in the first place, it would not be a double standard, seeing as the US wasn't openly threatening Russia, whereas Russia was openly threatening Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US with their system.
He thinks the Economist is the official spokesperson of the U.S. Government.

He only recently figured out that the Economist is actually printed in England, but hasn't connected the dots yet to understand that it doesn't represent official American governmental policy and opinon. :rolleyes:

Edit:....See?! :D I didn't even see his post until I had posted mine and he connected "The U.S. bitching about ______" to an Economist article. Oh, God...you know he is brainwashed by Russian propoganda when he is that predictable.

Murdoch said that? Did Russia take away his ability to broadcast his shit to them? That's usually the only reason he attacks any goverment. He doesn't care less about and naked, heartless aggression from anyone.

I do however know that should the US complain about Russia deploying something to counter a missile shield that's not supposed to stop Russian missiles in the first place, it would not be a double standard, seeing as the US wasn't openly threatening Russia, whereas Russia was openly threatening Poland, the Czech Republic, and the US with their system.

And how do the Russians know that the missile shield is not aimed at stopping their missiles? Because the US said so, and everyone knows they don't lie?

A missile shield is just a bunch of missiles that's supposed to shoot down other missiles...And once you have the gear on the ground that can launch the anti-missiles missiles, there's nothing stopping you mounting a nuke and pointing it towards...Well, anywhere you want, Poland is basically in the center of Europe.

Would the US mind if Russia deployed it's missiles in, say, Cuba? Oops, that already happened and they did mind and we almost had a nuclear war.

The Economist Article posted by the Atlantian Islands. All the bullshit coming from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. By US bitching, I meant Neocon Media - and you instantly pull the official card. Nice strawman there. You said "The US bitches". The logical conclusion is that some official representative of the US bitches. No one else really has the authority to speak for the US.
Also, didn't the US claim that the missile shield wasn't against Russia? Yeah and? It's not really relevant.
Then why worry about Russians countering it, I mean if it wasn't agaisnt Russia, why worry at all? Because the Russians could counter it and thereby prevent it from shooting down a missile shot off by Iran.
Russians hate Al Qaeda just as much as the US does. Also, a statement from a pissed off Col. General that has no missile command isn't a threat.What about Iran? The US isn't afraid of Al Qaeda gaining access to ICBMs any time soon. It's Syria, Iran, and North Korea they're worried about.

You were saying that complaining about a direct threat when possibly committing a veiled threat is a double standard. It really isn't.

I think I speak for the vast majority of American people when I say that those Georgians, the ones who aren't from one of our southern states but for some reason have the same name, and the Ossetians, or whatever they are called, are two ethnic groups from somewhere far away who, reportedly, have been fighting, so what else is new? The reason we don't know much about the rights and wrongs of the situation is because we have no particular connections out that way and really, truly do not care, why should we?

Kosovo part of Serbia - Serbia allied with Russia. Georgians attacked the Roki Tunnel with cluster bombs, that's definitely part of Russia.

By that logic, the United States of America is allied with Georgia; therefore, Russia was meddling in our affairs with Georgia.

By that logic, the United States of America is allied with Georgia; therefore, Russia was meddling in our affairs with Georgia.

We have no alliance with Georgia. McCain thought we ought to have such an alliance, but I doubt that we are going to form one.

He thinks the Economist is the official spokesperson of the U.S. Government.

He only recently figured out that the Economist is actually printed in England, but hasn't connected the dots yet to understand that it doesn't represent official American governmental policy and opinon. :rolleyes:

Edit:....See?! :D I didn't even see his post until I had posted mine and he connected "The U.S. bitching about ______" to an Economist article. Oh, God...you know he is brainwashed by Russian propoganda when he is that predictable.

I don't think the Economist is the official spokesperson for the US Government. I do think that you excel at attacking the poster and not the post. If you cannot argue agaisnt the argue, try and make the person look like an idiot, wow - that's an old one. And putting words in my mouth - when I said by US I don't mean official sources - do tell, do you fail at reading comprehension? From the post before yours:

"The Economist Article posted by the Atlantian Islands. All the bullshit coming from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. By US bitching, I meant Neocon Media - and you instantly pull the official card. Nice strawman there."

You guys excel at strawmen arguments. Just like your Neocon bosses, Russia moved conventional missiles from point A in Russia to point B in Russia - WAR. Shofercia actually exposes our doublestandards and strawman arguments - let's put stuff he'd never say in his mouth, and hope that the NSG readers are too stupid to figure it out.

By that logic, the United States of America is allied with Georgia; therefore, Russia was meddling in our affairs with Georgia.

Serbia didn't attack a tunnel, part of which is on US soil. Nor did Serbia fund Al Qaeda. Nor did Serbia allow Al Qaeda to operate from within Serbia. Russia and Serbia have signed an actual alliance in 2003. US and Georgia have no alliance. Huge differences.

"The Economist Article posted by the Atlantian Islands. All the bullshit coming from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. By US bitching, I meant Neocon Media - and you instantly pull the official card. Nice strawman there."


The Economist isn't neocon, in fact it's the opposite
Economist: Smaller Government (to a point, they still support things like the NHS etc...), socially liberal
Neocons: Biiiig government, socially conservative.

We have no alliance with Georgia. McCain thought we ought to have such an alliance, but I doubt that we are going to form one.

Hmm... I suppose I had read a wrong source in naming a sort of alliance between the USA and Georgia. In any case, we have a good relationship with a decent amount of former Soviet Union nations. Georgia's acceptance into NATO is becoming more and more of a possibility.

But in any case, the point of my previous post was to throw that sort of logic (allied with this nation makes it their own affairs, sort of thing) out the window, because it's not accurate at all.

Serbia didn't attack a tunnel, part of which is on US soil. Nor did Serbia fund Al Qaeda. Nor did Serbia allow Al Qaeda to operate from within Serbia. Russia and Serbia have signed an actual alliance in 2003. US and Georgia have no alliance. Huge differences.

I'm confused as to what any of that has to do with my post. Please elaborate further on what Georgia apparently did. As I said in my previous post above this, the logic of "us meddling in Russia's affairs through their 'allies'" is very faulty at best.

Git them dern commies!

What about Iran? The US isn't afraid of Al Qaeda gaining access to ICBMs any time soon. It's Syria, Iran, and North Korea they're worried about.



You really want to blame Russia for everything, don't you? Check your Geographic skills. Iran would first fire off at Israel - on that they've been abundantly clear. Syria and nukes - ROFL. Seriously? I thought this was Earth. North Korea - check your Geographic skills. If you really believe that North Korea will fire missiles that will take the much longer route - congratulations, you get a Dunce Cap.

I'm confused as to what any of that has to do with my post. Please elaborate further on what Georgia apparently did. As I said in my previous post above this, the logic of "us meddling in Russia's affairs through their 'allies'" is very faulty at best.

In 2003 Serbia and Russia signed an alliance. In 2008 Kosovo, backed by NATO declared Independence. Before that, as per Resolution 1244, Kosovo was an integral part of Serbia. Thus, a Russian Ally, Serbia was dismantled, via NATO policies. The equivalent would be of Russia recognizing Scotland's Independence, or that of Northern Ireland.

Georgia is a whole different story. On August 7th, Georgia launched a massive assualt against the civillian target of Tskhinvali and the Russian Peacekeeper Base. Whether the Russian Peacekeeper Base had a right to be there, or not, is another story, but you don't just attack a Russian Peacekeeper Base. The equivalent would be the Cuban attacking Guantanamo - you can imagine the US Response. The Russian Forces in the region were on high alert, cause it's the Caucasian Region. Georgia's attack also included the Roki Tunnel, part of which was on Russian Soil. In the Korean War, when the US attacked bridges crossing from North Korea into China, the Chinese responded in force. Here, the Russians responded in force. They were on high alert - then again when are Russian Forces not on High Alert in the Caucasian Region? Never. So they responded in force, while keeping their special forces at bay, and focusing only on military facilities.

Initially none of this was shown on American TV, but the Russian Response was actually covered as the initial attack. Therein lies the difference. The agressor, in both cases, was not Russia. Meddling - means funding agressors to destabilize country X, while these agressors serve no benefit for your own country's defense, not to be confused with your own country's financial institutions. For instance, having a US base in Turkey - while Russia may not like it, is ok, because Turkey doesn't meddle in Russia's affairs, nor borders Russia.

The problem I have with US meddling in Russia's affairs, is that it is not only damaging economically, but also makes the US weaker militarily. The Russians are going to respond, as they've done in Georgia. When you shoot at the Russian Army - they tend to shoot back. Now if it helped the US security, ok fine, but there's not been a single argument made on how either Georgia or Kosovo helps US security.

Hmm... I suppose I had read a wrong source in naming a sort of alliance between the USA and Georgia. In any case, we have a good relationship with a decent amount of former Soviet Union nations. Georgia's acceptance into NATO is becoming more and more of a possibility.

But in any case, the point of my previous post was to throw that sort of logic (allied with this nation makes it their own affairs, sort of thing) out the window, because it's not accurate at all.

Ask France and/or Germany about if they want Georgia in NATO. Let's not forget that NATO consists of other countries besides the US and the UK.

The Economist isn't neocon, in fact it's the opposite
Economist: Smaller Government (to a point, they still support things like the NHS etc...), socially liberal
Neocons: Biiiig government, socially conservative.

Economist - smaller government, bigger army
Neocons - smaller government, bigger army

Yeah exact opposites.

Ask France and/or Germany about if they want Georgia in NATO. Let's not forget that NATO consists of other countries besides the US and the UK.

Note the word, 'possibility', rather than 'inevitably'.

Economist - smaller government, bigger army
Neocons - smaller government, bigger army

Yeah exact opposites.

You seriously can't tell the difference between progressive libertarianism and neoconservatism?

You seriously can't tell the difference between progressive libertarianism and neoconservatism?

Does Progressive Libertarianism suck up to oil companies as much as the Economist does? Does it call for "Liberations" of other countries? Isn't Libertarianism about freedom, self-defense and not building another empire? Finally, do Progressive Libertarians go around - saying "this country is a threat" or "this country is ok"? Cause that's what the Economist does. If that's Progressive Libertarianism, then I see no difference. If I am wrong - let me know and we can debate on it. Try not to attack me though, as others have done.

Edit: Doesn't Progressive Libertarianism ask for lowering taxes and balancing the budget? Doesn't that mean that one should not have bases in 130/192 countries?

I'd much rather the US meddled in Congo's affairs. Those actually require some immediate meddling.

That being said, the way both the US and Russia have been approaching issues important to them hasn't exactly been constructive. A missile shield makes sense if it can act to discourage countries like Iran from building missiles - if they're not going to hit, they're not much of a bargaining tool. The Russians know perfectly well that the installations in eastern Europe have absolutely nothing to do with them, and I can't say I harbour much sympathy for their objections.

On Iran's nukes, I think the Russians have acted quite well (better than the Americans, anyways). The suggestion to do the production and recycling of nuclear fuel for them was a good one. The lack of follow-up once the Iranians rejected left much to be desired though. But that beats just not talking to them at all, or making random comments bound to be interpreted as threats.

On Georgia, everyone involved is an idiot, without any exception whatsoever. Saakashvili ought to be tarred and feathered by his own constituency for being a moron who gambles with the nation, the Russians deserve a big kick up the backside for thinking their way of invading other countries is any better than that of the Americans - especially if regime change was plainly being considered for a while in the Kremlin.

As for Serbia's territorial integrity, I don't give a shit about it. What matters are the concerns of the people who end up being ruled by a government that they don't approve of and have no means of changing, since the Serbian constitution and electoral laws take no account of the Albanian minority's interests (Lebanon might be one system to be looked at). And the same goes for Serbs living in northern Kosovo, who should also have the right to join Serbia if they so chose. But any arguments based on the historical significance of Kosovo for the Serbian nation are to be disregarded completely. If Germany survived most of Prussia being removed, then Serbia will be able to deal with this. That's ultimately a matter best handled by the EU though, it has a pretty good track record of being able to use potential membership to make people come to their senses.

What I would like to see though is some meddling in Russia's industrial policies. The way Putin has dealt with foreign investment in industries he considers "strategic" amounts to glorified theft, and it's appalling to me that other governments have done so little to call him on it.

And as for me personally, I think modern Russia is basically like modern Venezuela, except on the right rather than the left. The same authoritarian government, the same treatment of opposition politics and -media, the same use of foreign affairs to avoid dealing with domestic problems and the same questionable commitment to legal niceties like constitutions and term limits.

I don't think the Economist is the official spokesperson for the US Government. I do think that you excel at attacking the poster and not the post. If you cannot argue agaisnt the argue, try and make the person look like an idiot, wow - that's an old one. And putting words in my mouth - when I said by US I don't mean official sources - do tell, do you fail at reading comprehension? From the post before yours:

"The Economist Article posted by the Atlantian Islands. All the bullshit coming from the likes of Rupert Murdoch. By US bitching, I meant Neocon Media - and you instantly pull the official card. Nice strawman there."

You guys excel at strawmen arguments. Just like your Neocon bosses, Russia moved conventional missiles from point A in Russia to point B in Russia - WAR. Shofercia actually exposes our doublestandards and strawman arguments - let's put stuff he'd never say in his mouth, and hope that the NSG readers are too stupid to figure it out.You said the US bitched about something. When asked for an example, you cited the Economist. Pointing out that a magazine edited in London does not speak for the US even if the owner has an American passport is not a strawman argument. Your statement that the US bitched about the Russian movement of missiles is misleading and it's perfectly reasonable to clear that up.

To simplify: "All the neocon media" do not in anyway constitute "US" in the sentence:2. US bitches about Russia moving conventional missiles on Russian Territorry.
You really want to blame Russia for everything, don't you? Check your Geographic skills. Iran would first fire off at Israel - on that they've been abundantly clear. Syria and nukes - ROFL. Seriously? I thought this was Earth. North Korea - check your Geographic skills. If you really believe that North Korea will fire missiles that will take the much longer route - congratulations, you get a Dunce Cap.Ooh, an ad hominem and a strawman. Not to mention that you wrote "Geography [sic]" when you should have written "geopolitical". What would be an appropriate response to this? Oh, yes:Double standards much?
Anyway, me pointing out why the Bush administration wants to build the missile shield, or what they're using as an excuse, does not somehow mean that I think it's logical, practical, or that I support it. But it is the official reason why it's being built.
Now as to the geopolitical aspect of the whole thing, anyone with half a brain that's been paying even minimal attention to the news would have noticed that the three countries mentioned constitute the "Axis of Evil", ergo the "rogue states" that the Bush administration has been warning everyone about.
(Hilariously enough, this isn't some kind of endorsement of said classification by me, merely me pointing out whom the US [until the 20th of January] is officially afraid of.)
Ask France and/or Germany about if they want Georgia in NATO. Let's not forget that NATO consists of other countries besides the US and the UK.Germany's position currently is "Definitely yes, but not right now." So the answer to the question "Does Germany want Georgia in NATO?" would be "Yes."

you beat me to it!

Or russia meddling in the ukraine and the whole of europe by threatening to turn off the gas? Hmm.

IOKIYAR mebbe?

If the chickenhawks had their way, we'd probably be at war with over half the world.

Oh my goodness. Those pesky Russians actually selling gas to Ukraine at MARKET PRICES and threatening to find another trade partner if Ukraine doesn't repay their debts. How dare they practice Capitalism on a government that we like?!

Oh, I'm fine with the capitalist aspect. I'm more thinking of the idea of the cutoff in 2006 to effect the popularity of the Ukrainian President and alter the outcome of the parliamentary elections.

IOKIYAR mebbe?

Nope. But I am against freezing people in the winter for political gain. Had the price raises been gradual or announced instead of a sudden shock, I wouldn't care.

Every major country meddles in the affairs of other countries. Russia has a long history of meddling in the affairs of the US, and vice versa. Asking that one side or the other completely and unilaterally stop is naive.

That being said, the way both the US and Russia have been approaching issues important to them hasn't exactly been constructive. A missile shield makes sense if it can act to discourage countries like Iran from building missiles - if they're not going to hit, they're not much of a bargaining tool. The Russians know perfectly well that the installations in eastern Europe have absolutely nothing to do with them, and I can't say I harbour much sympathy for their objections.

Except that the missile shield does not discourage the production of ICBM. It has been projected, mainly by the CDI, that such shield would actually increment the production of said missiles since one way to beat it seems to be owerhelming it with sheer numbers.

Except that the missile shield does not discourage the production of ICBM. It has been projected, mainly by the CDI, that such shield would actually increment the production of said missiles since one way to beat it seems to be owerhelming it with sheer numbers.And the idea is that Russia would be able to do that, while "rogue states" cannot.

Every major country meddles in the affairs of other countries. Russia has a long history of meddling in the affairs of the US, and vice versa. Asking that one side or the other completely and unilaterally stop is naive.

Russia meddling in US affairs would equate to Russians selling weapons to Iraqi Insurgency. Got links to prove that? Or something similar? Also, wasn't it the USSR during the Cold War? Today it's a multi-polar World, no Cold War. And while taking steps for World Peace may seem naive, it is the right thing to do. Wasn't hoping that a black guy would beat out two Washington Insiders, naive? Who's the US President-Elect? Exactly.

Today it's a multi-polar World, no Cold War.After the financial crisis, maybe, but not yet. The world was uni-polar after the Cold War.

Russia meddling in US affairs would equate to Russians selling weapons to Iraqi Insurgency. Got links to prove that? Or something similar? Also, wasn't it the USSR during the Cold War? Today it's a multi-polar World, no Cold War. And while taking steps for World Peace may seem naive, it is the right thing to do. Wasn't hoping that a black guy would beat out two Washington Insiders, naive? Who's the US President-Elect? Exactly.

I guess you forgot all about Klaus Fuchs. Or supporting rebels in Central America. Or their current spy agency which has agents in the US.

Are they there just to get some Starbucks?

You said the US bitched about something. When asked for an example, you cited the Economist. Pointing out that a magazine edited in London does not speak for the US even if the owner has an American passport is not a strawman argument. Your statement that the US bitched about the Russian movement of missiles is misleading and it's perfectly reasonable to clear that up.

To simplify: "All the neocon media" do not in anyway constitute "US" in the sentence:
Ooh, an ad hominem and a strawman. Not to mention that you wrote "Geography [sic]" when you should have written "geopolitical". What would be an appropriate response to this? Oh, yes:
Anyway, me pointing out why the Bush administration wants to build the missile shield, or what they're using as an excuse, does not somehow mean that I think it's logical, practical, or that I support it. But it is the official reason why it's being built.
Now as to the geopolitical aspect of the whole thing, anyone with half a brain that's been paying even minimal attention to the news would have noticed that the three countries mentioned constitute the "Axis of Evil", ergo the "rogue states" that the Bush administration has been warning everyone about.
(Hilariously enough, this isn't some kind of endorsement of said classification by me, merely me pointing out whom the US [until the 20th of January] is officially afraid of.)
Germany's position currently is "Definitely yes, but not right now." So the answer to the question "Does Germany want Georgia in NATO?" would be "Yes."

You look for where most of the Magazine's Subscribers are. Not where it's published. Duh! I wasn't clear enough initially, then I cleared it up, and yet you're still here trying to confuse people. It's been cleared up already, get over it. As for you pointing it out, you should've been smart enough to at least take out North Korea. Otherwise, you're jsut regurgitating something completely moronic. The "Rogue States" were so dubbed because they won't listen to the US. Do you seriously think either China or Russia will stand by and let North Korea get nukes? Honestly? And Bush also warned everyone about WMDs, so what? As for Germany's position, it can change too, as more information on whom actually fired the first real shots (not scrimaging) comes out.

I guess you forgot all about Klaus Fuchs. Or supporting rebels in Central America. Or their current spy agency which has agents in the US.

Are they there just to get some Starbucks?

Spy agencies will always do shit like that on all sides. This thread isn't about spy agencies. As for rebels in Central America - is the US Allied with those Central American Countries? Or are the Americas property of the US?

Spy agencies will always do shit like that on all sides. This thread isn't about spy agencies. As for rebels in Central America - is the US Allied with those Central American Countries? Or are the Americas property of the US?

They were allies. So it's "meddling in our interests".

You do know that Georgia is a separate country, and not part of Russia?

But Russia has "interests" in Georgia. And if we help Georgia in any way, we're "meddling in Russia's interests".

And spy agencies and military assistance and trade assistance is all "meddling".

You look for where most of the Magazine's Subscribers are. Not where it's published. Duh! I wasn't clear enough initially, then I cleared it up, and yet you're still here trying to confuse people. Your point "US bitches about..." is invalid, because it didn't happen. That is all.
It's been cleared up already, get over it. As for you pointing it out, you should've been smart enough to at least take out North Korea. North Korea was left in because it's a rogue state that has been firing missiles and thus is relevant to the paranoia the Bush administration has been expressing concerning the "Axis of Evil".Otherwise, you're jsut regurgitating something completely moronic. That it's moronic is largely irrelevant to the fact that it is why the Bush administration wants a missile shield.
The "Rogue States" were so dubbed because they won't listen to the US. Do you seriously think either China or Russia will stand by and let North Korea get nukes? Honestly? And Bush also warned everyone about WMDs, so what?I'm wondering how they'd end up trying to stop them. China wouldn't let anyone go and bomb the DPRK and it's unlikely they'll really muster anything of their own to seriously prevent it from happening.
As for Germany's position, it can change too, as more information on whom actually fired the first real shots (not scrimaging) comes out.The OSCE report didn't really reveal anything that hasn't been public knowledge in Germany since shortly after hostilities erupted. In case it isn't clear, that also means that Germany has known Georgia initiated the conflict and that it wasn't justified in doing so.

We'll just settle it with hockey as usual.

They were allies. So it's "meddling in our interests".

You do know that Georgia is a separate country, and not part of Russia?

But Russia has "interests" in Georgia. And if we help Georgia in any way, we're "meddling in Russia's interests".

And spy agencies and military assistance and trade assistance is all "meddling".

Although spying is meddling, everyone does it, so it's not really meddling. I'm sure the English and the Americans spy on each other as well. Comparing spying agency activities limited to intelligence gathering, to military assistance - which provides weapons and training, is a huge leap and a silly one at that. If spying is properly done, the target nation doesn't get hurt. If military assistance is properly rendered, then the nation against whom the military assistance is rendered, gets hurt. HUGE DIFFERENCE. Also, yeah Georgia is a separate country. Did you know that Russians didn't attack south of Tbilisi, although they could have? Did you know that Ossetia never officially agreed to be part of Georgia, but Stalin forced it upon them?

Also, no. We can provide all the Humanitarian Needs to Georgia and that wouldn't be meddling. However Stingers aren't humanitarian aid. Jeeps with machine guns aren't humanitarian aid. Even today, Russia has no qualms about providing Georgia humanitarian aid. But the weapon sales must stop.

After the financial crisis, maybe, but not yet. The world was uni-polar after the Cold War.

Right. But today the World is Multi-Polar. US can no longer tell China or Russia what to do, ergo no uni-polar World.

Although spying is meddling, everyone does it, so it's not really meddling.
WTF?!

Right. But today the World is Multi-Polar. US can no longer tell China or Russia what to do, ergo no uni-polar World.
Actually, everyone can tell everyone what to do. It's a question of who actually listens.

Right. But today the World is Multi-Polar. US can no longer tell China or Russia what to do, ergo no uni-polar World.

Ah, countries try to tell each other what to do all the time, regardless of their relative power.

And, by the same token, Russia cannot tell the US and NATO what to do anymore than the US and NATO can tell Russia what to do.

Did you know that Russians didn't attack south of Tbilisi, although they could have?

Given how much of Georgia is North of Tbilisi, that's not that impressive of a claim.

Did you know that Ossetia never officially agreed to be part of Georgia, but Stalin forced it upon them?

And Russia agreed, by treaty, that it was part of Georgia after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia "renegotiated" that treaty by force a few months ago.

Given how much of Georgia is North of Tbilisi, that's not that impressive of a claim.
Just adding of a bit to your response to Shofercia. I'm a bit confused about the intentions of Russia, but going all the way to the capital of Georgia, seeing as South Ossetia and Abkhazia certainly don't extend all the way to Tblisi.

http://rogerspr.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/georgia_high_detail_map.png

Given how much of Georgia is North of Tbilisi, that's not that impressive of a claim.



And Russia agreed, by treaty, that it was part of Georgia after the dissolution of the USSR. Russia "renegotiated" that treaty by force a few months ago.

Actually if you read the dissolution documents, you would have noticed that in 1993 (not exactly a few months ago) Georgia recognized the Autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Then Georgia tried to use Russia's weakness and loss in the First Chechen War to exhort pressure against Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However they failed. Then it was peaceful, until Saakashvili came to power promising to repeal the autonomous status of those two regions. The regions didn't like that, but didn't do anything, except increasing patrols. Then came the scrimmaging. Then this war. Russia didn't "renegotiate" anything in terms of land claims, it simply recognized autonomous regions as Independent, like they were before Dzugashvili, (aka Stalin, aka a Georgian) took away their Independence. The Russians may not have behaved perfectly, but the New York Times agrees that Georgians started the war and Russian did minimize civilian casualties.

Given certain Media Outlets claimed that Russia is annexing Georgia, the very fact that the Russian could have, and did not go South of Tbilisi, invalidates those claims and makes them look rather moronic, right Fox News/CNN? CNN now boldly ignores the story, and Fox News is too busy blasting Sara Palin.

Just adding of a bit to your response to Shofercia. I'm a bit confused about the intentions of Russia, but going all the way to the capital of Georgia, seeing as South Ossetia and Abkhazia certainly don't extend all the way to Tblisi.

http://rogerspr.com/hp_wordpress/wp-content/uploads/georgia_high_detail_map.png

They were making a point that they could have conquered Georgia, but chose not to. This is necessary, as some idiots have tried to argue that the 2008 South Ossetian War was not in fact a major victory for Russia, militarily speaking. They didn't attack any cities with too many civilians there, they didn't attack Tbilisi with ground forces. However the Russians destroyed the military infrastructure of Georgia, something they're rather honest about, and considering that the South Ossetian Battle Plans were developed in Senaki Military base, and Russia's subsequent leveling of that base, again something they're completely open about, sent a clear message to Georgia, to not mess with Russia and not stir up anymore trouble in the Caucasian Region. The Second Chechen War ended with a Minor Russian Victory in 2004. This time the Russians got a Major Victory. They want the status quo, they don't want another war. Saakashvili on the other hand does, because without it, he's a leader who was disastrously defeated and under whom the economic went downhill, he can only blame the Russians for so long before being voted out of office. He's like Bush, except Bush didn't manage to totally f*ck up Afghanistan. If there was a democratic election in Georgia today, even by Florida standards, Saakashvili would still lose.

WTF?!


Actually, everyone can tell everyone what to do. It's a question of who actually listens.

In response to WTF, I already explained that spying, if done properly, will not hurt the target country. Meddling must actually hurt the target country. I'm a realist. As for everyone telling everyone what to do, well if Bahamas told Cuba what to do, wouldn't they sound silly? And if no one listens to the US, except most of NATO, doesn't that invalidate the claim of a multi-polar World?

Nope. But I am against freezing people in the winter for political gain. Had the price raises been gradual or announced instead of a sudden shock, I wouldn't care.

These were the Market Prices. They were announced in advance. The fact that the Ukrainian government didn't listen, isn't Russia's problem.

I think we should stop selling grain to russia, and wach them beg for mercy... >;)

Your point "US bitches about..." is invalid, because it didn't happen. That is all.
North Korea was left in because it's a rogue state that has been firing missiles and thus is relevant to the paranoia the Bush administration has been expressing concerning the "Axis of Evil".That it's moronic is largely irrelevant to the fact that it is why the Bush administration wants a missile shield.
I'm wondering how they'd end up trying to stop them. China wouldn't let anyone go and bomb the DPRK and it's unlikely they'll really muster anything of their own to seriously prevent it from happening.
The OSCE report didn't really reveal anything that hasn't been public knowledge in Germany since shortly after hostilities erupted. In case it isn't clear, that also means that Germany has known Georgia initiated the conflict and that it wasn't justified in doing so.

Fair enough. US Mainstream Media bitches - better?
North Korea had one missile test after which China and Russia mobilized their forces and politely explained to North Korea that if they would do so again, the Russians and the Chinese would teach their army a lesson. This of course was not covered by the US Mainstream Media. China alone can take out DPRK in hours.

Also, I said that Bush's statement that North Korea launching nukes through Poland, or even Europe, or at Europe was moronic. You repeating it, without elucidating as to why Bush was wrong, was also moronic. You trying to dodge the issue will not help your cause. Just admit that you made a mistake and get over it.

North Korea would first nuke Japan anyways, just as Iran would nuke Israel. The whole concept of a shield in Poland is a waste of American Taxpayer Dollars. The Russians have already said that they'll get around it, and Europe won't be the first target of either Iran, Syria or North Korea, that much is obvious to anyone with common sense. Is Russia also wasting their government money moving the conventional Iskander missiles around? Yes. Does that mean we're now on the brink of a Cold War? No. Any common sense person would know that, and not post an article about how Russia threatens the US.

I think we should stop selling grain to russia, and wach them beg for mercy... >;)

That one worked really well when Truman did it in 1945.

That one worked really well when Truman did it in 1945.
well this time we would be pointing nukes at them, and stubbornly avoiding the fact that they have too much anthrax, like we americans do best:D

We'll just settle it with hockey as usual.

Hmm - that would be quite a game. Team USA/Canada vs. Team Russia.

Kovalchuk-Datsuyk-Ovechkin
Semin-Malkin-Afinogenov
Zaripov-Zinoviev-Morozov
Tereshenko-Samsonov-Sushinski

(Sub: Kovalev-Fedorov-Govorikov)

Zubov-Volchenkov
Markov-Markov
Nikulin-Proshkin

(Sub: Grebeshkov-Kalinin)

Goaltenders: Nabokov - Bryzgalov - (Sub Eremenko or Koshechkin)

Your lines?

well this time we would be pointing nukes at them, and stubbornly avoiding the fact that they have too much anthrax, like we americans do best:D

Huh? Antharax?

Hmm - that would be quite a game. Team USA/Canada vs. Team Russia.

Kovalchuk-Datsuyk-Ovechkin
Semin-Malkin-Afinogenov
Zaripov-Zinoviev-Morozov
Tereshenko-Samsonov-Sushinski

(Sub: Kovalev-Fedorov-Govorikov)

Zubov-Volchenkov
Markov-Markov
Nikulin-Proshkin

(Sub: Grebeshkov-Kalinin)

Goaltenders: Nabokov - Bryzgalov - (Sub Eremenko or Koshechkin)

Your lines?

Post Bump

Anthrax, a deadly bacterium developed into weapons of mass destruction during the cold war by Russia, which has enough of it to wipe out all of creation (or had the potential to make enough)

They were making a point that they could have conquered Georgia, but chose not to. This is necessary, as some idiots have tried to argue that the 2008 South Ossetian War was not in fact a major victory for Russia, militarily speaking. They didn't attack any cities with too many civilians there, they didn't attack Tbilisi with ground forces. However the Russians destroyed the military infrastructure of Georgia, something they're rather honest about, and considering that the South Ossetian Battle Plans were developed in Senaki Military base, and Russia's subsequent leveling of that base, again something they're completely open about, sent a clear message to Georgia, to not mess with Russia and not stir up anymore trouble in the Caucasian Region. The Second Chechen War ended with a Minor Russian Victory in 2004. This time the Russians got a Major Victory. They want the status quo, they don't want another war. Saakashvili on the other hand does, because without it, he's a leader who was disastrously defeated and under whom the economic went downhill, he can only blame the Russians for so long before being voted out of office. He's like Bush, except Bush didn't manage to totally f*ck up Afghanistan. If there was a democratic election in Georgia today, even by Florida standards, Saakashvili would still lose.


There were more forces at hand, besides the fact of Russia 'trying to make a point'. If they were to fully conquer Georgia, I can guarantee that the rest of the world would've reacted much worse than they had to the initial invasion. It would've made Russia look much much worse than it already did, from the start of the attack in Georgia.

Before the topic of "well the USA invaded Iraq without world approval" comes up, I was against the invasion from the start, and I would agree that the USA made a horrible mistake in doing so.

There were more forces at hand, besides the fact of Russia 'trying to make a point'. If they were to fully conquer Georgia, I can guarantee that the rest of the world would've reacted much worse than they had to the initial invasion. It would've made Russia look much much worse than it already did, from the start of the attack in Georgia.

Before the topic of "well the USA invaded Iraq without world approval" comes up, I was against the invasion from the start, and I would agree that the USA made a horrible mistake in doing so.

The US invaded Iraq for no reason, other then Saddam Hussein wasn't giving Chevron a sweet oil deal. Really, I don't see a reason. Russia invaded Georgia to stabilize the Caucasian Region. When Saddam Hussein was in power, the Middle East was largely stable, with Iraq counter-balancing Iran. By invading Iraq, the US CREATED PROBLEMS in giving Al Qaeda time to recuperate from the initial US assault which was extremely succesful, and taking pressure off of Iran. In the Georgian case, Russia has SOLVED PROBLEMS and stabilized the Caucasian Region, before Saakashvili could destabilize it, further making a point to anyone who would even think to destabilize the region. You cannot really compare Georgia and Iraq.

Also, Saakashvili, much like Bush, f*cked up Georgian economy, whereas Putin and Medvedev actually fixed up Russia's economy. If Russia was to conquer Georgia there were also economic considerations at hand, as well as political. What I was saying is that militarily the Russians could have conquered Georgia. Would such a conquest devaste Russia's economy? Probably not, but it could put a serious dent in Russia's economy. Politically - I don't know; I do know that a lot of media outlets who jumped to conclusions, lost credibility. CNN in Russia has sunk to an all time low in terms of viewership, because of their coverage of the war, they may never be able to recover. Because of such poor coverage, the so-called Liberal Channels are losing in Russia, and on what?! Covering the news before getting all the facts straight and presuming that Putin is automatically evil. This war amongst Russians is even more popular then Putin! To the Russians, their soldiers and their families were unjustly attacked by a foreign army using Grads. Their military heroically responded and crushed the foreign army.

If Saakashvili had a problem with Russian Peacekeepers and Russian Civillians in South Ossetia - he should've taken it up with OSCE, or ICJ, or something. Not blindly follow Kosovo's unilateral failed declaration. Unilateral stuff don't work in a Multi-Polar World. The Russian Peacekeepers in the area were approved by the 1993 Russo-Georgian Treaty and tacitly approved by the United Nations. And then they were fired upon. Should the Russian Army have waitied until they were all killed?

Anthrax, a deadly bacterium developed into weapons of mass destruction during the cold war by Russia, which has enough of it to wipe out all of creation (or had the potential to make enough)

Ahh ok, I see, so still like MAD #2. Another anti-meddling argument. I do hope that Russians don't make more though, I mean they probably have enough as it is!

Right. But today the World is Multi-Polar. US can no longer tell China or Russia what to do, ergo no uni-polar World.No, it isn't. The US may have hampered it's stance as the world's sole superpower by overextending in Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither Russia nor China are quite up to the task of staging a military operation of that size over a comparable distance. The US still dominates the world financially and militarily; no one else is on a comparable level of global power quite yet.
Given certain Media Outlets claimed that Russia is annexing Georgia, the very fact that the Russian could have, and did not go South of Tbilisi, invalidates those claims and makes them look rather moronic, right Fox News/CNN? CNN now boldly ignores the story, and Fox News is too busy blasting Sara Palin.Considering that the South Ossetians are calling to be annexed, the claim is by no means invalidated.
Fair enough. US Mainstream Media bitches - better? Yeah. Now we can finally put the nonsensical accusation of a double standard to rest.
North Korea had one missile test after which China and Russia mobilized their forces and politely explained to North Korea that if they would do so again, the Russians and the Chinese would teach their army a lesson. This of course was not covered by the US Mainstream Media. China alone can take out DPRK in hours. Source it.

Also, I said that Bush's statement that North Korea launching nukes through Poland, or even Europe, or at Europe was moronic. You repeating it, without elucidating as to why Bush was wrong, was also moronic. You trying to dodge the issue will not help your cause. Just admit that you made a mistake and get over it. When did Bush say that and when did I repeat it?

North Korea would first nuke Japan anyways, just as Iran would nuke Israel. The whole concept of a shield in Poland is a waste of American Taxpayer Dollars. The Russians have already said that they'll get around it, and Europe won't be the first target of either Iran, Syria or North Korea, that much is obvious to anyone with common sense. Is Russia also wasting their government money moving the conventional Iskander missiles around? Yes. Does that mean we're now on the brink of a Cold War? No. Any common sense person would know that, and not post an article about how Russia threatens the US.North Korea might just nuke Hawaii. The ideological opposition Iran has to Israel is not comparable.

Lol, so how is US(or any other foreign power) supposed to end "meddling in Russian affairs"? Lets divide world into spheres of interest where each major power has free hands to do whatever they want?

We might as well just leave Russia alone. Their conventional forces are garbage, but it only takes a couple of SLBMs to ruin our day (and cities). All of this posturing equates to a pissing contest from across the Pacific, hilarious as it may be.

In regards to the DPRK, North Korea is simply a joke. The South Korean military would have naval superiority from the start of a conflict and air superiority within a couple of days. I'd be stunned if the North Korean armies managed to get as far as Seoul. USFK aren't needed to repel North Korea, they're there as a tripwire to keep the Chinese out and America's nuclear weapons in play.

And the idea is that Russia would be able to do that, while "rogue states" cannot.

Yeah, they would run out of money on the 11th missile... If it at least sounded real...

I guess you forgot all about Klaus Fuchs. Or supporting rebels in Central America. Or their current spy agency which has agents in the US.

Are they there just to get some Starbucks?

They got Klaus Fuchs, you got Arkady Shevchenko.
They supported rebels in Central America, you supported dictators in Central America (and sometimes removed them when they weren't any more useful).
They have agents in the US, you... Well, if the CIA doesn't have some guys in Russia the Director of Operations should be sacked, don't you think?

So, your point was what?

We might as well just leave Russia alone. Their conventional forces are garbage, but it only takes a couple of SLBMs to ruin our day (and cities). All of this posturing equates to a pissing contest from across the Pacific, hilarious as it may be.

In regards to the DPRK, North Korea is simply a joke. The South Korean military would have naval superiority from the start of a conflict and air superiority within a couple of days. I'd be stunned if the North Korean armies managed to get as far as Seoul. USFK aren't needed to repel North Korea, they're there as a tripwire to keep the Chinese out and America's nuclear weapons in play.Gosh, cuz, you know, it's not like the city isn't within range of North Korean artillery or anything...

Hmm - that would be quite a game. Team USA/Canada vs. Team Russia.

Kovalchuk-Datsuyk-Ovechkin
Semin-Malkin-Afinogenov
Zaripov-Zinoviev-Morozov
Tereshenko-Samsonov-Sushinski

(Sub: Kovalev-Fedorov-Govorikov)

Zubov-Volchenkov
Markov-Markov
Nikulin-Proshkin

(Sub: Grebeshkov-Kalinin)

Goaltenders: Nabokov - Bryzgalov - (Sub Eremenko or Koshechkin)

Your lines?

:(
I miss Dominator and Jagr in our team...

The US invaded Iraq for no reason, other then Saddam Hussein wasn't giving Chevron a sweet oil deal. Really, I don't see a reason. Russia invaded Georgia to stabilize the Caucasian Region. When Saddam Hussein was in power, the Middle East was largely stable, with Iraq counter-balancing Iran. By invading Iraq, the US CREATED PROBLEMS in giving Al Qaeda time to recuperate from the initial US assault which was extremely succesful, and taking pressure off of Iran. In the Georgian case, Russia has SOLVED PROBLEMS and stabilized the Caucasian Region, before Saakashvili could destabilize it, further making a point to anyone who would even think to destabilize the region. You cannot really compare Georgia and Iraq.

Also, Saakashvili, much like Bush, f*cked up Georgian economy, whereas Putin and Medvedev actually fixed up Russia's economy. If Russia was to conquer Georgia there were also economic considerations at hand, as well as political. What I was saying is that militarily the Russians could have conquered Georgia. Would such a conquest devaste Russia's economy? Probably not, but it could put a serious dent in Russia's economy. Politically - I don't know; I do know that a lot of media outlets who jumped to conclusions, lost credibility. CNN in Russia has sunk to an all time low in terms of viewership, because of their coverage of the war, they may never be able to recover. Because of such poor coverage, the so-called Liberal Channels are losing in Russia, and on what?! Covering the news before getting all the facts straight and presuming that Putin is automatically evil. This war amongst Russians is even more popular then Putin! To the Russians, their soldiers and their families were unjustly attacked by a foreign army using Grads. Their military heroically responded and crushed the foreign army.

If Saakashvili had a problem with Russian Peacekeepers and Russian Civillians in South Ossetia - he should've taken it up with OSCE, or ICJ, or something. Not blindly follow Kosovo's unilateral failed declaration. Unilateral stuff don't work in a Multi-Polar World. The Russian Peacekeepers in the area were approved by the 1993 Russo-Georgian Treaty and tacitly approved by the United Nations. And then they were fired upon. Should the Russian Army have waitied until they were all killed?

Interesting. I'm definitely learning more things about the war than I had before. Believe it or not, I'm open to different opinions and beliefs. :eek2:

Actually if you read the dissolution documents, you would have noticed that in 1993 (not exactly a few months ago) Georgia recognized the Autonomy of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Clearly, you didn't get my sarcasm in the use of the word renegotiated. If a sneer could be transmitted over the internet when I typed that word, it would have been.

Then Georgia tried to use Russia's weakness and loss in the First Chechen War to exhort pressure against Abkhazia and South Ossetia. However they failed. Then it was peaceful, until Saakashvili came to power promising to repeal the autonomous status of those two regions. The regions didn't like that, but didn't do anything, except increasing patrols. Then came the scrimmaging. Then this war. Russia didn't "renegotiate" anything in terms of land claims, it simply recognized autonomous regions as Independent

South Ossetia and Abkhazia, though, are by treaty and by recognition part of Georgia. Russia acted independent of existing treaties and the opinions of the rest of the world (with the except of Nicaraugua--woo-hoo) to use military force to alter the status quo. They unilaterally acted in determining the independence of these regions, without consultation with Georgia or the other post-Soviet states.

Like they were before Dzugashvili, (aka Stalin, aka a Georgian) [QUOTE]

Stalin largely self-identified as a Russian, regardless of his actual origins, and pushed aggressive Russification policies throughout the USSR. He had little, if any, emotional connection to his ancestral homeland.

[QUOTE=]The Russians may not have behaved perfectly, but the New York Times agrees that Georgians started the war and Russian did minimize civilian casualties.

What sorts of provocation might the Russians have carried out to make these events more likely? I'd argue that maintaining a large, active and ready military force on the other side of the Roki tunnel created an increasing perception of imminent threat by the Georgian government, and precipitated this war. Had Moscow kept its armored forces further back, then maybe these events might never have developed.

Given certain Media Outlets claimed that Russia is annexing Georgia, the very fact that the Russian could have, and did not go South of Tbilisi, invalidates those claims and makes them look rather moronic, right Fox News/CNN? CNN now boldly ignores the story, and Fox News is too busy blasting Sara Palin.

The Russians hewed quite close to the advice of the Powell doctrine, to fight a war with limited aims, with overwhelming force and with a clear exit strategy (i.e., annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia). They knew that if they had taken Tbilisi, they would have inspired such global blowback, as it would have been viewed as blatant territorial aggression, as well as a further attempt to monopolize European access to energy.

Speculation within the western media in regards to the potential annexation of Georgia was based on the deep penetration into the country by Russian ground forces, as well as the continued pronouncements from the Russian government that they were much further back than the troops actually were. The speculation turned out to be incorrect, but, that's what speculation tends to do.

As far as the record of media sources during the war, Western sources operating with limited information made mistakes, but they pale in comparison to the blatant, uncritical cheerleading that even English language "Russia Today" made use of. They put Fox News to shame in their silliness.

The US invaded Iraq for no reason, other then Saddam Hussein wasn't giving Chevron a sweet oil deal. Really, I don't see a reason. Russia invaded Georgia to stabilize the Caucasian Region. When Saddam Hussein was in power, the Middle East was largely stable, with Iraq counter-balancing Iran. By invading Iraq, the US CREATED PROBLEMS in giving Al Qaeda time to recuperate from the initial US assault which was extremely succesful, and taking pressure off of Iran. In the Georgian case, Russia has SOLVED PROBLEMS and stabilized the Caucasian Region, before Saakashvili could destabilize it, further making a point to anyone who would even think to destabilize the region. You cannot really compare Georgia and Iraq.

It's quite true that they cannot be compared, because the strategic decision making process involved in both cases, the quality of execution, and the transparency of the decision making process are all entirely different. Further, trying to justify Russia's actions based off of "Oh, you went into Iraq" is a tu quoque fallacy, and not really that valid.

Also, Saakashvili, much like Bush, f*cked up Georgian economy, whereas Putin and Medvedev actually fixed up Russia's economy.

On that, I'd tend to disagree. The Georgian economy was not thriving under Shevvy, and Saakashvili was making efforts to reform it into a more modern, less industrial economy. No policies of Putin and Medvedev, though, had nothing to do with the Russian economic boom.

Rather, the price of oil had everything to do with the Russian economic boom--a boom that is neither broad nor deep.

If Russia was to conquer Georgia there were also economic considerations at hand, as well as political. What I was saying is that militarily the Russians could have conquered Georgia. Would such a conquest devaste Russia's economy? Probably not, but it could put a serious dent in Russia's economy.

Such a decision could have hurt the Russian economy in the short term. But, long term being able to control the only non-Russian pipeline from the Caspian Sea would have proven to be an economic boon for both Russian gas producers and Russian gas distributors.

Politically - I don't know; I do know that a lot of media outlets who jumped to conclusions, lost credibility. CNN in Russia has sunk to an all time low in terms of viewership, because of their coverage of the war, they may never be able to recover. Because of such poor coverage, the so-called Liberal Channels are losing in Russia, and on what?! Covering the news before getting all the facts straight and presuming that Putin is automatically evil. This war amongst Russians is even more popular then Putin! To the Russians, their soldiers and their families were unjustly attacked by a foreign army using Grads. Their military heroically responded and crushed the foreign army.

Largely because that is the point of view that was constructed by the Russian media during the duration of the war. The Georgia War thread back when had several posters linking to video from Russia Today, in which the channel played back the video of Saakashvili being covered by his security detail, while the hosts laughed and called him playground names. It was silly--it was embarrassing to watch these journalists be used as such blatant tools of propaganda.

If Saakashvili had a problem with Russian Peacekeepers and Russian Civillians in South Ossetia - he should've taken it up with OSCE, or ICJ, or something. Not blindly follow Kosovo's unilateral failed declaration. Unilateral stuff don't work in a Multi-Polar World. The Russian Peacekeepers in the area were approved by the 1993 Russo-Georgian Treaty and tacitly approved by the United Nations.

And Saakashvili should have worked through diplomatic channels to resolve the situation, but Putin deploying a large ready force north of the border altered the situation significantly.

And then they were fired upon. Should the Russian Army have waitied until they were all killed?

The Russian army should have maintained and defended their positions. They should not have moved a large armored force into Georgia proper, seized cities, removed the civil authorities from those cities, and replaced them with their own military administrators.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia, though, are by treaty and by recognition part of Georgia. Russia acted independent of existing treaties and the opinions of the rest of the world (with the except of Nicaraugua--woo-hoo) to use military force to alter the status quo. They unilaterally acted in determining the independence of these regions, without consultation with Georgia or the other post-Soviet states.

[QUOTE=]Like they were before Dzugashvili, (aka Stalin, aka a Georgian) [QUOTE]

Stalin largely self-identified as a Russian, regardless of his actual origins, and pushed aggressive Russification policies throughout the USSR. He had little, if any, emotional connection to his ancestral homeland.



What sorts of provocation might the Russians have carried out to make these events more likely? I'd argue that maintaining a large, active and ready military force on the other side of the Roki tunnel created an increasing perception of imminent threat by the Georgian government, and precipitated this war. Had Moscow kept its armored forces further back, then maybe these events might never have developed.



The Russians hewed quite close to the advice of the Powell doctrine, to fight a war with limited aims, with overwhelming force and with a clear exit strategy (i.e., annexation of South Ossetia and Abkhazia). They knew that if they had taken Tbilisi, they would have inspired such global blowback, as it would have been viewed as blatant territorial aggression, as well as a further attempt to monopolize European access to energy.

Speculation within the western media in regards to the potential annexation of Georgia was based on the deep penetration into the country by Russian ground forces, as well as the continued pronouncements from the Russian government that they were much further back than the troops actually were. The speculation turned out to be incorrect, but, that's what speculation tends to do.

As far as the record of media sources during the war, Western sources operating with limited information made mistakes, but they pale in comparison to the blatant, uncritical cheerleading that even English language "Russia Today" made use of. They put Fox News to shame in their silliness.

Stalin may have identified himself as a Russian. And I may identify myself as a fan of Bush. It's not identity, it's his actions. He chopped South Ossetia in half, and gave the Southern Half to Georgia. When the Ossetians protested, he had their envoy killed. No true Russian leader has ever split Ossetia into two parts.

South Ossetia and Abkhazia are AUTONOMOUS. That's partway in between annexed and independent. Not to mention that any country that uses Grads against its own civillians doesn't deserve that land, period.

The Russian Army SHOT BACK. They haven't acted, they have reacted. Russia Today certainly made the mistake of dropping the missing claim, i.e. the initial casualty report was 2,000 Ossetians dead/missing. That pales in comparison to what CNN/Fox News did. They labeled Russia as the agressor! That's like calling Poland the agressive in WWII. Or the Czech. Republic. The very fact that you even claim that Russia Today had worst coverage of the war then the people who couldn't even get the agressor right, shows your enourmous anti-Russian bias.

Let's recap the war:

1. There was scrimaging. There has always been scrimaging in that area. There have generally been scrimaging in the Caucasian Area.

2. The Georgians used scrimaging as "something new" and attacked Russian Army Base and Tskhinvali Hospital, using Grads.

3. Russian Forces made a stunning and brilliant counter-attack, while trying to limit civillian casualties.

4. Fox News/CNN labeled Russia as the agressor.

"fair and balanced", "most trusted name in news", my ass. Just like Pravda - who of course only printed the "truth". "The U.S. Ambassador to Russia, John Beyrle, confirmed that the Russian response to Georgia's attack on South Ossetia was legitimate. " http://atlanticreview.org/archives/1155-U.S.-Ambassador-Russian-response-in-Georgia-well-grounded.html How the f*ck do you not get that Georgians were the agressors, if a US Ambassador claims that Russian RESPONDED, ergo they could not have been the attackers. And yet you attribute Russia Today as being much worse. Seriously, stop hating Russia so much. Get a date maybe...

3. Russian Forces made a stunning and brilliant counter-attack, while trying to limit civillian casualties.

lol...You are so brainwashed. I'd imagine Putin would be pleased.

Молодежное движение (Наши)?

It's quite true that they cannot be compared, because the strategic decision making process involved in both cases, the quality of execution, and the transparency of the decision making process are all entirely different. Further, trying to justify Russia's actions based off of "Oh, you went into Iraq" is a tu quoque fallacy, and not really that valid.

There is no point in justifying the South Ossetian War. Georgia attacked, Russia responded. Only bullshit wars, like Iraq, need to be "justified". It however doesn't hurt to point out that what the US did in Iraq, is much, much worse then what Russian has done, anything Russia has done since the collapse of the USSR.


On that, I'd tend to disagree. The Georgian economy was not thriving under Shevvy, and Saakashvili was making efforts to reform it into a more modern, less industrial economy. No policies of Putin and Medvedev, though, had nothing to do with the Russian economic boom.

Rather, the price of oil had everything to do with the Russian economic boom--a boom that is neither broad nor deep.

Saudi Arabia - lots of oil profit, but corrupt pro-US dictators, economy not booming.

Equatorial Guenia - lots of oil profit, but corrupt pro-US dictators, economy not booming.

Russia - no corrupt pro-US people at the helm, lots of oil profit, economy's booming. Once again your hatred of Russia fails common sense. If Putin's and Medevedev's policies had nothing to do, but rather it was oil, why are Saudi Arabia's economy and Equatorial Guenia's economy not booming like the Russian economy, huh? Why's the Russian economy still growing, after oil fell in price?

Such a decision could have hurt the Russian economy in the short term. But, long term being able to control the only non-Russian pipeline from the Caspian Sea would have proven to be an economic boon for both Russian gas producers and Russian gas distributors.

The Russian Navy controls the Caspian Sea. Why would they need to control the Caspian Sea pipeline? It'd be easier to negotiate with other Caspian Sea countries to build a pipeline through Russia. You don't need to control the entire river if you control its mouth. Same strategic principle here, but your hatred for Russia once again fails logic.

Largely because that is the point of view that was constructed by the Russian media during the duration of the war. The Georgia War thread back when had several posters linking to video from Russia Today, in which the channel played back the video of Saakashvili being covered by his security detail, while the hosts laughed and called him playground names. It was silly--it was embarrassing to watch these journalists be used as such blatant tools of propaganda.

You mean people actually laugh when a "bold" leader chickens out and non of the media are even remotely scared? Geez, that's a new one. Funny though, how you didn't even bother to qoute Mudoch's much more severe and backwards statement about linking Putin and Al Qaeda.

And Saakashvili should have worked through diplomatic channels to resolve the situation, but Putin deploying a large ready force north of the border altered the situation significantly.

The Russians have always had a large force in the Caucasian Region. Where have you been for the past two centuries?

The Russian army should have maintained and defended their positions. They should not have moved a large armored force into Georgia proper, seized cities, removed the civil authorities from those cities, and replaced them with their own military administrators.

Defended and maintained? An AK-47 vs. a Grad Launcher? They'd be slaughtered! Something tells me that's what you would have loved to see. Stop hating Russia.

lol...You are so brainwashed. I'd imagine Putin would be pleased.

Молодежное движение (Наши)?

Political Independent Actually. Don't like political parties, just like the US Founding Fathers didn't like them. Nashi is a Youth Faction of United Russia. Also:

Was Russia's victory not brilliant?
Was Russia's victory not stunning? Didn't it stun the Rest of the World?
Didn't they throughoutly destroy Blackwater-like Agency trained Georgian Army?
And if they wouldn't have limited civillian casualties, wouldn't there be a lot more civillian deaths? Like say if Russians tried a ground assault on Tbilisi?

Olmedreca;14206440']Lol, so how is US(or any other foreign power) supposed to end "meddling in Russian affairs"? Lets divide world into spheres of interest where each major power has free hands to do whatever they want?

Or just let sovereign countries be sovereign?

No, it isn't. The US may have hampered it's stance as the world's sole superpower by overextending in Iraq and Afghanistan, but neither Russia nor China are quite up to the task of staging a military operation of that size over a comparable distance. The US still dominates the world financially and militarily; no one else is on a comparable level of global power quite yet.

Ok, in a uni-polar the US told everyone what to do. "Mr. Gorbachev take down that wall!" "China - no tariffs, gives us cheap labor, now! Oh, and we won't really give you much as compensation." "France, no more dollar-gold standards exchange for you!" "Ok, we're all liberating Kuwait, got it?" "Let's go bomb Belgrade and see how many civillians we can kill before the Serbs capitulate?"

Non of this is possible anymore. Ergo the World is no longer Uni-Polar. As for US domination financially - really? So if China called in all those US loans - would the US still be on top? As for military operation like Iraq - it's a disaster, why stage it? What's the point? The duo, Russia and China, would rather fix their infrastructure then waste money so that their corporations can make a profit.

Considering that the South Ossetians are calling to be annexed, the claim is by no means invalidated.

The claim that Russians were the agressors has been throughoutly invalidated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06cluster.html?ref=europe

Yeah. Now we can finally put the nonsensical accusation of a double standard to rest.

Not we can't cause it's logical.

The US places conventional nuke-shooters in Poland. Russian Media no likey.
Russia place conventional Iskanders in Kaliningrad. US Media criticizes Russia for being agressive.

See double standards? The US Media, while defending missiles in Poland, attacks missiles in Kaliningrad. Both are conventional. Both moved via UN treaties. Yet the US Media picks one over the other. See how that's double-standards? You either pick both, or pick neither. I said - Poland, not a threat, Kaliningrad - not a threat, get over it.

When did Bush say that and when did I repeat it?

Page 4, Post #60. In response to my saying that only morons would say that you need missile shields in Poland against North Korea, you said "Anyway, me pointing out why the Bush administration wants to build the missile shield, or what they're using as an excuse, does not somehow mean that I think it's logical, practical, or that I support it. But it is the official reason why it's being built."

North Korea might just nuke Hawaii. The ideological opposition Iran has to Israel is not comparable.

Really? Ask your Korean friends what they think about the Japanese. Also, North Korea nuking Hawaii, clearly a missile shield in Poland is needed to stop that, oh wait, no it doesn't. Doh!

Interesting. I'm definitely learning more things about the war than I had before. Believe it or not, I'm open to different opinions and beliefs. :eek2:

I think it's crucial to keep an open mind. :D I've researched countless wars and actually used that data to predict future wars, getting all of those predictions right. :D A few areas I'm an expert on, others I just sit and listen. That's why I only post a lot on a few threads - where I'm knowledgeble. Start a topic about the Great Collider, and you'll have me reading a lot more then posting :D

:(
I miss Dominator and Jagr in our team...

Jagr still plays, but I too miss the Great USSR - CSSR Hockey Rivalry. :(

On the positive side, hockey is getting better and better every year :D

Actually if you want to post your lines for Team Czech. Republic or Slovakia, go for it! I'd be curious to see them, either NHL Format (which is what I used) or standard format (adds two defenders).

Or just let sovereign countries be sovereign?

Sounds awesome in theory, similarly like "lets have world peace and solve all problems diplomatically" and "lets end starvation" etc. Countries dont exist in vacum, so I would like to hear how it should look like in practice? Russia gets to play in former soviet republics, while US gets to have fun somewhere else, China also gets his own playground somewhere etc? Or every country gets to do whatever it wants inside its borders (yay genocide!)?

Olmedreca;14208529']Sounds awesome in theory, similarly like "lets have world peace and solve all problems diplomatically" and "lets end starvation" etc. Countries dont exist in vacum, so I would like to hear how it should look like in practice? Russia gets to play in former soviet republics, while US gets to have fun somewhere else, China also gets his own playground somewhere etc? Or every country gets to do whatever it wants inside its borders (yay genocide!)?

Well every country should remain sovereign, unless it commits an act, by which it voluntarily gives away its sovereignty. The tricky part is where to draw the line. Genocide is an obvious one. Using Rocket Launchers against civillian hospitals, also obvious. Ethnic Clensing, while not as obvious as Genocide is still up there. But what about discrimination, like the South in the 1920's? Or, to a lesser extent, Estonia today. That's where the line gets blurry. Personally, I don't think that's enough.

Then again there are obvious acts of agression as well. Such as Al Qaeda, being blatantly obvious. Or an attack on a base, or an embassy. Then there's the murkier line, assuming Georgia didn't use Grads, didn't attack the Roki Tunnel or the Russian Base, then what? Again that's where the line gets blurry.

Each nation having its playground is backwards thinking. Imperialism failed, see WWI. Now to those who would call me a Communist for calling WWI Imperialist, oh really, what was it? Goodwill? It was a war of the German, Austo-Hungarian and Italian EMPIRES vs. the British, French and Russian EMPIRES. And for WWI, all sides get some form of blame, even though Italy switched sides, that doesn't mitigate the blame. And the United States was very much act like an EMPIRE when it intervened. Wilson's 14 points and the League of Nations was a joke. Japan simply withdrew when the League condement their attacks. USSR got expelled - that was smart, like the UN expelling the US - the most powerful member. So playground, I would say, would ultimately fail. As would Spheres of Influence.

Thus, the way I see it - is a World with 192 UN Sovereign Members and Independent Sovereign States like the Holy See that can only lose their sovereignty through either an extremely hostile act against their populace, or a deliberate attack on another sovereign nation. Now I am a realist, so spying need not apply here, until as humans, we gain each other's trust - there will be spying.

And I realize that other nations will try to pretend that they have a playground area. However with the Globalization of Trade and Economic Factors, as well as in Democratic or Democratically-Transitioning Countries - economy playing a huge roll. Maybe Putin would love to annex Georgia, but the Russian economy cannot sustain the occupation. I don't think Putin wanted to annex Georgia, I just threw that in for the sake of the argument. Playground areas will be harder and harder to maintain. The economic advantage will assist.

But, in addition, we must have proper, World-Wide education. The USSR had stellar math and science education and horrific Humanities education. In the US - the Ivy League System, and the top UCs and other similarly brain-stormed public universities are stellar. But the US school system needs desperate improvenment. The case is much, much worse in African Countries. In Afghanistan they don't even have schools for the majority of the population. I think every nation should aspire to reach the math and science standards set by the USSR, in all areas, not just math and science. Because until there is Proper, Worldwide Education the governments can continue to fool the population.

Since this is a thread about Russia - there is actually a mini revolt about Putin's education reforms there and one of the few areas where we disagree. Putin actually backpedalled on those reforms somewhat. Countries like Russia, US, China, EU - shouldn't be fighting with their Teachers' Unions but should increase teacher salaries and improve their education systems, not just through more funding, but ensuring that goes to teachers, not union reps, as well as an improved voucher system. And as someone who never needed college loans and paid for college out of pocket, I can say that colleges should be free.

So in short, yes I am an optimist. However it is possible. In 1941 things looked bleak. In 1944 things looked much better. What a difference 3 years can make. The main problem is getting past the hatred, past the mistrust and working together, just like we all do on the International Space Station. :D

Gosh, cuz, you know, it's not like the city isn't within range of North Korean artillery or anything...I wasn't aware that shelling a city was equivalent to overrunning it. Israelis took Damascus during the Yom-Kippur War, did they?

I think every nation should aspire to reach the math and science standards set by the USSR, in all areas, not just math and science. Because until there is Proper, Worldwide Education the governments can continue to fool the population.
Well...to be fair, the USSR had a pretty good go at fooling a lot of its population. As did Nazi Germany, or Saddam's Iraq. And Americans elected W - twice. I don't think promoting education for the sake of superior political outcomes is a particularly strong argument to make.

I think education is far more valuable in economic terms, so it should be talked about in terms of an investment as well as a form of empowering poor people. Still, making any such system global sounds like one hell of a job. Within both Germany and Australia, even the states can't work out a common way of teaching subjects like maths or science. Trying to get Iran, Venezuela, Djibouti and the US to agree on a common curriculum doesn't sound like a good way of spending an afternoon.

Countries like Russia, US, China, EU - shouldn't be fighting with their Teachers' Unions but should increase teacher salaries and improve their education systems, not just through more funding, but ensuring that goes to teachers, not union reps, as well as an improved voucher system.
That's another thread, but the idea that throwing money at the problem and making conditions nicer for teachers makes schools better is wrong. In the countries with the best schools, becoming a teacher is hardest and requires the most years spent learning and earning the position.

I wasn't aware that shelling a city was equivalent to overrunning it. Israelis took Damascus during the Yom-Kippur War, did they?

Israel shelling Damascus is a lot different from the DPRK shelling Seoul.

http://www.boston.com/news/world/asia/articles/2006/06/27/north_korean_guns_clear_and_present_danger_to_south/

The capital Seoul, only 60 km (37 miles) south of the heavily fortified Demilitarized Zone that has divided the peninsula since the end of the Korean War in 1953, has long been within range of one of the world's most powerful artillery batteries.

South Korea's Defense Ministry said the North had amassed more than 13,000 pieces of artillery and multiple rocket launchers, much of it aimed at Seoul.

Jane's International Defense Review estimates that if North Korea launched an all-out barrage, it could achieve an initial fire rate of 300,000 to 500,000 shells per hour into the Seoul area -- home to about half the country's 48.5 million people.

The biggest are 170-mm self-propelled artillery guns and 240-mm multiple rocket launchers. It also has hundreds of Scud missiles that could hit any part of South Korea.

And before you jump on it.

Military experts note that South Korean and U.S. forces have worked for decades to perfect a counter strike. They also say that impoverished North Korea probably has not kept all of its guns in working order and may be short of shells.

But as a relatively basic weapons system, a rain of artillery would be the North's most effective and reliable way to hit the South fast and hard, they add.

Even if the North only had half of their guns operable and enough ammo for two hours of sustained firing that's a hell of a lot more damage than Israel could think about doing, short of using nuclear weapons.

Ok, in a uni-polar the US told everyone what to do. "Mr. Gorbachev take down that wall!" "China - no tariffs, gives us cheap labor, now! Oh, and we won't really give you much as compensation." "France, no more dollar-gold standards exchange for you!" "Ok, we're all liberating Kuwait, got it?" "Let's go bomb Belgrade and see how many civillians we can kill before the Serbs capitulate?"

Non of this is possible anymore. Ergo the World is no longer Uni-Polar. As for US domination financially - really? So if China called in all those US loans - would the US still be on top? As for military operation like Iraq - it's a disaster, why stage it? What's the point? The duo, Russia and China, would rather fix their infrastructure then waste money so that their corporations can make a profit. Like I said, we're in transition. Neither China nor Russia have a sort of power projection yet.
The claim that Russians were the agressors has been throughoutly invalidated.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/07/world/europe/07georgia.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/06/world/europe/06cluster.html?ref=europe
Funny. We were talking about the claim that Russia wants to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Not we can't cause it's logical.

The US places conventional nuke-shooters in Poland. Russian Media no likey.
Russia place conventional Iskanders in Kaliningrad. US Media criticizes Russia for being agressive.

See double standards? The US Media, while defending missiles in Poland, attacks missiles in Kaliningrad. Both are conventional. Both moved via UN treaties. Yet the US Media picks one over the other. See how that's double-standards? You either pick both, or pick neither. I said - Poland, not a threat, Kaliningrad - not a threat, get over it. Keep digging.
Page 4, Post #60. In response to my saying that only morons would say that you need missile shields in Poland against North Korea, you said "Anyway, me pointing out why the Bush administration wants to build the missile shield, or what they're using as an excuse, does not somehow mean that I think it's logical, practical, or that I support it. But it is the official reason why it's being built." Now, I'm aware you may not be a native English speaker, so I won't be too harsh, but you can't really twist what I said to say what you think I said. The Bush administration lumps the rogue states into one pot, despite clear differences between Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They're using the fact that North Korea shoots missiles whenever they feel like it as evidence that this is a potential danger from all rogue states, hence because North Korea would do it, Iran might do it as well, hence the Bush administration's excuse for building a shield protecting its allies in Europe, so that Iran can't blackmail them with nuclear weapons.
Really? Ask your Korean friends what they think about the Japanese. Also, North Korea nuking Hawaii, clearly a missile shield in Poland is needed to stop that, oh wait, no it doesn't. Doh!Keep digging.

I wasn't aware that shelling a city was equivalent to overrunning it. Israelis took Damascus during the Yom-Kippur War, did they?I hardly think the residents of Seoul will care whether it was infantry or artillery shells that killed them.

I wasn't aware that shelling a city was equivalent to overrunning it. Israelis took Damascus during the Yom-Kippur War, did they?

North Korea doesn't have to take Seoul. All it has to do is level it, which it can, and South Korea would take a crippling blow. You don't lose half your population and capital city in the opening hours of the war without suffering huge adverse effects.

North Korea would lose eventually, in a slug out match, but it would bring down South Korea with it.

Jagr still plays, but I too miss the Great USSR - CSSR Hockey Rivalry. :(

On the positive side, hockey is getting better and better every year :D

Actually if you want to post your lines for Team Czech. Republic or Slovakia, go for it! I'd be curious to see them, either NHL Format (which is what I used) or standard format (adds two defenders).

:) I'll wait for a World cup thread to come out when it's time.

On the other hand an EU team to pitch in would be nice, Sweden has been pretty awesome of late...

Like I said, we're in transition. Neither China nor Russia have a sort of power projection yet.

Funny. We were talking about the claim that Russia wants to annex South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

Now, I'm aware you may not be a native English speaker, so I won't be too harsh, but you can't really twist what I said to say what you think I said. The Bush administration lumps the rogue states into one pot, despite clear differences between Iran, Syria, and North Korea. They're using the fact that North Korea shoots missiles whenever they feel like it as evidence that this is a potential danger from all rogue states, hence because North Korea would do it, Iran might do it as well, hence the Bush administration's excuse for building a shield protecting its allies in Europe, so that Iran can't blackmail them with nuclear weapons.


How many times do I have to tell you about South Ossetia? It has always viewed itself as part of North Ossetia. Georgia lost any claim to South Ossetia when they shelled it with Grad rockets and Cluster Bombs, both used against civilians. If South Ossetia wants to join Russia - there's no big deal here. It has always been De Facto either part of Russia, or closely allied with Russia. It's not the same as a country just taking a region for shits and giggles, as you try to present it. As for Abkhazia - considering that they want Diplomatic Relations with Kosovo, I don't think they'll be joining Russia anytime soon. Finally, Russia doesn't need anymore land. They just want a stable Caucasian Region, which, due to volatility, lags behind the rest of Russia. To alter Lincoln's quote: "If Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will do that. If Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by not annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will do that. And if Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by annexing South Ossetia and leaving Abkhazia be, or vice versa, they would also do that!" How dare do those Commies want peace and stability in their land?!

As to the claim of no Multi-Polar World yet, are you serious? Really?! You are either a Superpower, or you are not. There is no "In Transition" period. You either have the World's best army, or you don't; there is no "well it's comparable..." The World is either Uni-Polar or Mutli-Polar, and Uni-Polar would mean that the US is a Superpower, which the International Response to the Recognition of Kosovo, (aka US - suck it) proved the US is not a Superpower, therefore the World is Multi-Polar.

Finally, I am a native English speaker, it's just that your posts are rather confusing to read, I think you make it deliberately so, as to make it harder to counter-argue you silly, silly arguments. Iran blackmailing Europe with a nuke? Seriously? Where does Bush get this stuff? Why do you cite it? To get laughed at? Iran wants to have the sanctions lifted. I doubt blackmailing Europe will lift the sanctions. Iran isn't starving like North Korea. I mean, wow, just wow.

Well...to be fair, the USSR had a pretty good go at fooling a lot of its population. As did Nazi Germany, or Saddam's Iraq. And Americans elected W - twice. I don't think promoting education for the sake of superior political outcomes is a particularly strong argument to make.

I think education is far more valuable in economic terms, so it should be talked about in terms of an investment as well as a form of empowering poor people. Still, making any such system global sounds like one hell of a job. Within both Germany and Australia, even the states can't work out a common way of teaching subjects like maths or science. Trying to get Iran, Venezuela, Djibouti and the US to agree on a common curriculum doesn't sound like a good way of spending an afternoon.


That's another thread, but the idea that throwing money at the problem and making conditions nicer for teachers makes schools better is wrong. In the countries with the best schools, becoming a teacher is hardest and requires the most years spent learning and earning the position.

Well math and science education doesn't combat propaganda. Plus the Russians developed the Zotov Tongue - which made fun of the government, without the stupid censors noticing, and books were commonly smuggled it. Zotov Tongue Example: "Suyda hochuy, i suyda houchuy, i v zadnitsuy tozhe!" "I want it here, and here, and in my ass". That's making fun of Brezhnev on at least two counts; first is that he had way too many medals and he deserved none of them. Second is a reference to his sex life, if you don't get that, I won't elaborate. The stand-up comics didn't need to say it was Brezhnev - most people in the audience knew. However, in order to combat propaganda you need a quality Humanities education, something the Soviets lacked.

As for the four states you mentioned, Iran may be hard because they don't recognize the Holocaust. The rest are doable, it just requires compromise. The histories don't all have to be universal. The basics however do. The facts can differ, as long as the main concepts are the same. Math and Science - that's easy just follow the Soviet standards. Linguistics - English + language of country the school is in (or another language if the country speaks English) and a third language. Being tri-lingual, actually tri-lingual not Rosetta Stone tri-lingual, expands ones mental capacity. Humanities - again stick to the basics, freedom of speech and expression, as long as it doesn't cause society severe harm, such as yelling "FIRE" in a crowded theater. Once that's achieved, then maybe we can write a comprehensive history of the World. The curriculum doesn't have to be the same, the basic concepts do.

:) I'll wait for a World cup thread to come out when it's time.

On the other hand an EU team to pitch in would be nice, Sweden has been pretty awesome of late...

That'd be so unfair. EU Team. Currently there are The Seven, Russia, Canada, Sweden, Czech. Republic, Slovakia, Finland. The EU team would combine four of those - brutal. Switzerland, Belarus and Germany are up and coming. They'd go towards the EU Team, well I guess Belarus could join Russia too. But it would be great hockey, former USSR vs. North America vs. Europe. Europe's got a good chance.

But basing it on the individual teams, I'd have to give it to Russia. If they didn't have Ovechkin, then it would be tough. But Overchkin is a strong, tough, two-way player, who can score goals on his back and isn't greedy with the puck. If the Russians put out Ovechkin, Kovalchuk, Datsuyk, Semin and Malkin as a powerplay unit, that's going to hurt. Right Canada? Remember Nash's assist? (Yes I know it was Fedorov, not Datsuyk who was playing against Malkin for the Stanley Cup.) So with the Russian powerplay finally working, and the Russians being the fastest team, penalties against them would be tough to take, as they would result in goals, more often then not. I cannot wait for the 2010 Olympics! The problem with World Championship is that not everyone plays.

Yeah, they would run out of money on the 11th missile... If it at least sounded real...

Rogue States, only getting 10 missiles. What're the odds of the missile shield in Poland actually working, anyone know?

Rogue States, only getting 10 missiles. What're the odds of the missile shield in Poland actually working, anyone know?
Probably pretty good, against the type of missiles it's supposed to target. Which is not fancy new Russian ones that change course X times midflight and release countermeasures.

You might be able to explain this to me: exactly why is Russia opposed to the shield at all? What suggested to them that it was an affair to be concerned with?

How many times do I have to tell you about South Ossetia? It has always viewed itself as part of North Ossetia. Georgia lost any claim to South Ossetia when they shelled it with Grad rockets and Cluster Bombs, both used against civilians.I'd like to see the relevant treaties that state so. If South Ossetia wants to join Russia - there's no big deal here. Actually, there is. Both Putin and Medvedev have gone on record saying it wasn't going to happen.
It has always been De Facto either part of Russia, or closely allied with Russia. It's not the same as a country just taking a region for shits and giggles, as you try to present it. Ahaha. Strawman.
As for Abkhazia - considering that they want Diplomatic Relations with Kosovo, I don't think they'll be joining Russia anytime soon. Finally, Russia doesn't need anymore land. They just want a stable Caucasian Region, which, due to volatility, lags behind the rest of Russia. No, they want the oil pipelines under their control.
To alter Lincoln's quote: "If Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will do that. If Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by not annexing South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they will do that. And if Russia can stabilize the Caucasian Region by annexing South Ossetia and leaving Abkhazia be, or vice versa, they would also do that!" How dare do those Commies want peace and stability in their land?! The Russian peacekeepers are complicit in the atrocities committed by the South Ossetians at the very least, if not involved in them. Russia is doing jack shit to stabilize the region, quite the opposite, actually, they've been fanning the flames by providing a safe haven for any South Ossetian militias that have been raiding and harassing Georgian civilians.
As to the claim of no Multi-Polar World yet, are you serious? Really?! You are either a Superpower, or you are not. There is no "In Transition" period. You either have the World's best army, or you don't; there is no "well it's comparable..." The World is either Uni-Polar or Mutli-Polar, and Uni-Polar would mean that the US is a Superpower, which the International Response to the Recognition of Kosovo, (aka US - suck it) proved the US is not a Superpower, therefore the World is Multi-Polar. Whatev.

Finally, I am a native English speaker, it's just that your posts are rather confusing to read, I think you make it deliberately so, as to make it harder to counter-argue you silly, silly arguments. Iran blackmailing Europe with a nuke? Seriously? Where does Bush get this stuff? Why do you cite it? To get laughed at? Iran wants to have the sanctions lifted. I doubt blackmailing Europe will lift the sanctions. Iran isn't starving like North Korea. I mean, wow, just wow.Jeez, you're a native English speaker and yet your reading comprehension is that bad? I mean seriously, it's either that or you're willfully grasping at strawmen and ad hominems to avoid engaging in an honest debate.

Probably pretty good, against the type of missiles it's supposed to target. Which is not fancy new Russian ones that change course X times midflight and release countermeasures.

You might be able to explain this to me: exactly why is Russia opposed to the shield at all? What suggested to them that it was an affair to be concerned with?

Honestly that's what I don't get. The shield is no threat to Russia. But it's also not a threat to Iran/Syria/North Korea. So I guess it's more of a political pissing contest. I don't know why it's there in the first place. Iran/Syria/North Korea are 99% more likely to use a suitcase nuke anyways. I mean how hard is it to fit in during tourist season? Plus it probably won't be a single person, but rather multiple people trying to do it.

Thus I don't why the US Media went all over Russia moving conventional Iskander missiles into Kaliningrad. It's not like moving conventional missiles on your territorry from point A to point B is a crime. Again, I just think its a pissing contest between two drunk frat boys, and the media trying to cover it, will only encourage it. Especially Fox News and CNN trying to analyze whose pus is bigger. That's why I'm apalled by all this media coverage.

Another theory is that Medevedev doesn't want to look weak in the eyes of the military. The military aren't too happy about US funding Georgia, after they've estabilished the latter's ties to Chechnya, and the First Chechen War, which is a sour spot. It has been filled by the South Ossetian War, but remember that this pissing contest started before the South Ossetian War. So he responded to avoid looking weak. Is this an Cold War worthy issue? Hell no! Putin's hinted at compromising on the issue. Plus let's recall that the original Bush Proposal was for a whole missile shield complex, not just ten conventional nuke-shooters. If Obama does nothing about Russia moving conventional missiles on Russian territorry, it's extremely likely that this issue will be dropped. And so far Obama had the brains to do nothing. Sometimes the simplest solutions are the best.

1. Ahaha. Strawman.
2. No, they want the oil pipelines under their control.
3. The Russian peacekeepers are complicit in the atrocities committed by the South Ossetians at the very least, if not involved in them. Russia is doing jack shit to stabilize the region, quite the opposite, actually, they've been fanning the flames by providing a safe haven for any South Ossetian militias that have been raiding and harassing Georgian civilians.
4. Whatev.

1. You are calling my argument that South Ossetia wants to be with North Ossetia based on centuries of history a strawman? How good are your reading comprehension skills? Centuries of history and you call that a strawman. What's next, saying the South actually won the Battle of Gettysburg?

2. You further claim that Russia wants the oil pipelines under their control? Have you gone mad? Russia could have destroyed those pipelines with ease, and then offerred the Caspian Oil Exporting Countries safer pipelines through Russia. Yet they didn't do so. EPIC FAIL on your part.

3. Furthermore, if you want to document all of the atrocities ever comitted in the Caucasian Region - it will take more then a lifetime, even if you start in this century. Have you been in the Caucasian Region? Or are you one of those Neocon fingerpointers that are ok with bombing civillian cities, but when peacekeepers only prevent half of the atrocities, go "ahaha - they didn't prevent the other half, they're complicit, ahaha"? As for Russian "doing jack shit to stabilize the region" just by saying that you have proven yourself completely ignorant of Russian affairs. 100% bonafide ignorant. Putin's claim to fame is that he stabilized Russia, and in order to do so, one must stabilize the Caucasian Region, part of which is part of Russia, like Chechenya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, Sochi. A stable part of Russia produces more income, then an unstable part of Russia; more income, means Putin could fund more services and gain further political support. You don't grasp Geopolitics at all, do you? You focus on little spots, ignoring what's going on in the rest of the region. Also, North Ossetia and South Ossetia have always considered themselves to be a singly entity.

3. (cont.) You also say this "they've been fanning the flames by providing a safe haven for any South Ossetian militias that have been raiding and harassing Georgian civilians." Georgia hasn't been doing the same? Do you know how guerilla wars work? Or are you one of those, that enters a guerilla war midstream, bombs a civillian city, and wonders why the rest of the World hates you?

4. "Whatev"? How's that not a strawman?

1. You are calling my argument that South Ossetia wants to be with North Ossetia based on centuries of history a strawman? How good are your reading comprehension skills? Centuries of history and you call that a strawman. What's next, saying the South actually won the Battle of Gettysburg? Read it again. Maybe you'll be able to spot the strawman argument on your own. To help you, I bolded the strawman argument in this paragraph.
2. You further claim that Russia wants the oil pipelines under their control? Have you gone mad? Russia could have destroyed those pipelines with ease, and then offerred the Caspian Oil Exporting Countries safer pipelines through Russia. Yet they didn't do so. EPIC FAIL on your part. Yeah, like Russia could have pulled that off without serious consequences.
3. Furthermore, if you want to document all of the atrocities ever comitted in the Caucasian Region - it will take more then a lifetime, even if you start in this century. Have you been in the Caucasian Region? Or are you one of those Neocon fingerpointers that are ok with bombing civillian cities, but when peacekeepers only prevent half of the atrocities, go "ahaha - they didn't prevent the other half, they're complicit, ahaha"? As for Russian "doing jack shit to stabilize the region" just by saying that you have proven yourself completely ignorant of Russian affairs. 100% bonafide ignorant. Putin's claim to fame is that he stabilized Russia, and in order to do so, one must stabilize the Caucasian Region, part of which is part of Russia, like Chechenya, Dagestan, North Ossetia, Sochi. A stable part of Russia produces more income, then an unstable part of Russia; more income, means Putin could fund more services and gain further political support. You don't grasp Geopolitics at all, do you? You focus on little spots, ignoring what's going on in the rest of the region. Also, North Ossetia and South Ossetia have always considered themselves to be a singly entity. Calling me a neocon. That's rich. I'm beginning to believe you're getting paid to do this.
3. (cont.) You also say this "they've been fanning the flames by providing a safe haven for any South Ossetian militias that have been raiding and harassing Georgian civilians." Georgia hasn't been doing the same? Georgia has been doing the same. The funny thing is, they don't receive protection from Russians for doing it.
Do you know how guerilla wars work? Or are you one of those, that enters a guerilla war midstream, bombs a civillian city, and wonders why the rest of the World hates you? Have you got anything but your own delusions to back that rhetorical question up?

4. "Whatev"? How's that not a strawman?Nah, more of a time saver. You eat whatever your dear leader dishes out to you so greedily, there comes a time when it's no longer worthwhile to bother refuting it.

Honestly that's what I don't get. The shield is no threat to Russia. But it's also not a threat to Iran/Syria/North Korea. So I guess it's more of a political pissing contest. I don't know why it's there in the first place. Iran/Syria/North Korea are 99% more likely to use a suitcase nuke anyways. I mean how hard is it to fit in during tourist season? Plus it probably won't be a single person, but rather multiple people trying to do it.
It took the Soviets a few decades to get from a fission bomb to one that fit into a suitcase. Even with outside help, it would take a few years even to get the bomb to a stage where it will fit onto Scud-based long-range missiles, nevermind a suitcase.

Whatever the case may be, strategically the idea of a nuclear-tipped missile is important for rogue state. It's game theory, and all that. Putting up a shield that will significantly reduce the chance of a strike actually reaching its target changes the pay-off matrix. It's the same logic that prompted Reagan to think about Star Wars, except this time it's less ambitious and that much more workable. But it's also clearly not targeting Russia or its nuclear deterrent, and Russian generals would know it.

Is Russia a threat - of course! It may not be the only one but I don't like the way it's going:
Balls 'n' all: Putin's power politics
Luke Harding
November 16, 2008
EVEN before this year's war over South Ossetia, it was clear that Vladimir Putin loathed Mikheil Saakashvili, Georgia's pro-US President. The Kremlin leader's hatred wasn't just political — it was personal.

Just how personal was revealed last week when it emerged that Putin had threatened to hang Saakashvili "by the balls". Putin made his remarks to France's President Nicolas Sarkozy in August, after Sarkozy flew to Moscow to broker a peace deal.

With Russian tanks closing in on Georgia's capital Tbilisi, Sarkozy told Putin that he simply could not overthrow the democratically elected Georgian regime.

According to Sarkozy's aide, Jean David Levitte, Putin was unbothered by this. He said simply: "I am going to hang Saakashvili by the balls."

Why does Putin detest Saakashvili so much? During an interview in August, just after the conflict ended, Saakashvili told me that his last encounter with Putin about a year before the war in the Caucasus had ended badly.

Saakashvili said he complained to Putin about Russia's growing interest in Georgia's breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, adding that he, Saakashvili, enjoyed the support of Western leaders.

According to Saakashvili, Putin replied that he could stick this support, well, up his arse. Aides to Georgia's President wearily acknowledged that the personal animosity between the men was a big factor in August's conflict.

Russia's invasion of Georgia, an aide said, was designed to destroy its territorial integrity and overthrow its pro-Western Government. More than this, though, it was about Misha, as Saakashvili is known. "Putin hates Misha. He really hates him," one aide said.

There are other explanations for Putin's "balls" outburst. In Russia, of course, nobody criticises Putin. One of his earliest acts as President was to get rid of Russia's equivalent of Spitting Image after it mocked him.

The Kremlin controls all state-TV channels, ensuring that critics of the President do not appear. Political humour in Russia is almost non-existent. Cartoonists have a tough job.

During an EU-Russia summit meeting in Siberia this June I asked one senior EU leader whether he thought Putin had a sense of humour.

He said: "Yes. But his humour is rather cruel. He only has a sense of humour if the joke is at someone else's expense."

Impulsive and bonhomous, Saakashvili, meanwhile, is clearly the temperamental opposite of Putin, the sober and clinical former KGB colonel. Before the war Georgia's leader took every opportunity to lampoon Putin's regime, a trait once described as climbing to the top of the hill and mooning at Russia.

Putin is said to have been incensed after Saakashvili described him as "Liliputin" — a mocking reference to Putin's diminutive height.

According to Levitte, Sarkozy's diplomatic adviser, the French President misheard the balls remark. Sarkozy replied: "Hang him?" Putin then replied: "Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein."

Sarkozy tried to dissuade Putin from this course of action, reasoning: "Yes, but do you want to end up like Bush?"

Putin was briefly silenced before responding: "Ah, you have scored a point there!"

Putin's press secretary, Dmitry Peskov, conceded that "tough rhetoric" had been used during negotiations between Putin and Sarkozy over a ceasefire deal. There was no mention of the word balls, though.

Luke Harding writes for The Guardian.

It took the Soviets a few decades to get from a fission bomb to one that fit into a suitcase. Even with outside help, it would take a few years even to get the bomb to a stage where it will fit onto Scud-based long-range missiles, nevermind a suitcase.

Whatever the case may be, strategically the idea of a nuclear-tipped missile is important for rogue state. It's game theory, and all that. Putting up a shield that will significantly reduce the chance of a strike actually reaching its target changes the pay-off matrix. It's the same logic that prompted Reagan to think about Star Wars, except this time it's less ambitious and that much more workable. But it's also clearly not targeting Russia or its nuclear deterrent, and Russian generals would know it.

Poland, or the EU would not be either Iran's or North Korea's first target, that's for sure. That's something I'd bet all the money I had on. So that's what Russians are understanbly confused about - who's it against? Santa Claus? Also, if it was against Iran, Ajerbaijan - the base offered by the Russians, would indeed provide a much better location, in that you'd have more time to shoot the nuke before it hits Europe. More time to shoot - always a good thing if you're trying to shoot something down, provided all other factors stay the same.

Yeah, like Russia could have pulled that off without serious consequences.

Umm, Russia kicked Chevron out for environmental pollution. What were the serious consequences? The wrath of the Economist?

Calling me a neocon. That's rich. I'm beginning to believe you're getting paid to do this.

Yeah, exactly, I am. Putin personally views Nationstates as a high priority, and the opinion of Nation States player Laerod in particular. I have been sent in to neutralize him.

Look, if that's how you are going to respond to my argument, then I'll be sarcastic.

Georgia has been doing the same. The funny thing is, they don't receive protection from Russians for doing it.

Haven't I stated this a million times already: "Georgia helped Chechnya". So can you make a logical conclusion linking "Georgia helped Chechnya" to "Russia no like Georgia?" Are do I have to make the chain for you?

Have you got anything but your own delusions to back that rhetorical question up?

Absolutely. Most recent case: Albanians and Serbs are at war about Kosovo. Albania sends in their guerilla army, Serbia sends in theirs. The Serbs start winning. In come American fighters and bombers, bombing Belgrade. Want more cases?

Nah, more of a time saver. You eat whatever your dear leader dishes out to you so greedily, there comes a time when it's no longer worthwhile to bother refuting it.

Another golden argument. That can be a rebuttal to anything really.

Is Russia a threat - of course! It may not be the only one but I don't like the way it's going:
Balls 'n' all: Putin's power politics
Luke Harding
November 16, 2008


In Russia, of course, nobody criticises Putin. One of his earliest acts as President was to get rid of Russia's equivalent of Spitting Image after it mocked him.

The Kremlin controls all state-TV channels, ensuring that critics of the President do not appear. Political humour in Russia is almost non-existent. Cartoonists have a tough job.

Impulsive and bonhomous, Saakashvili, meanwhile, is clearly the temperamental opposite of Putin, the sober and clinical former KGB colonel. Before the war Georgia's leader took every opportunity to lampoon Putin's regime, a trait once described as climbing to the top of the hill and mooning at Russia.

Putin is said to have been incensed after Saakashvili described him as "Liliputin" — a mocking reference to Putin's diminutive height.

Luke Harding writes for The Guardian.

Now I know why Russia and Georgia went to war. Saakashvili called Putin "Liliputin". Wait, I just said Liliputin, should I duck? Wow, what a pathetic article. Ok I know I say this a lot; ok two things: why was the Georgia-Chechnya connection not at all mentioned? Nor Georgia's attack on the Russian Base in South Ossetia? Nor Russia's warnings that it will repel Georgia's attack?

As for political humor being almost non-existent in Russia, I mean the guy's just purely ignorant. KVN is the #1 Humor Show in Russia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KVN I don't like Wikipedia much, but it's hard to mess up describing something. Anyways, here's Putin getting made fun of on KVN; and remember, Luke Harding said that: "Political humour in Russia is almost non-existent." You do have to know Russian and Russian Culture to get it though, but - you can look at the impressions!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=51_ik0Wscz8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6tJPrKIX2wo&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t8Xklpsya-c&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-d1WM4GNjn0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0mAKNlOCmqY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kc6vfIsDNI&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GF63p4JLt7w&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLFy9Nkjj3A&feature=related


I can just keep on going and going and going!

And yes, at least half of Russians have seen at least one of those.

Here's one where he's watching - remember political humor almost non existant in Russia:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OJnbxqR-cs4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bw6PpqzwOmc&feature=related (English Translation). Also, KVN is not that hard to miss, it's Russia biggest comedy showing, airing Channel #1 - insanely popular.

You're in a hole...
Umm, Russia kicked Chevron out for environmental pollution. What were the serious consequences? The wrath of the Economist? Keep digging.Yeah, exactly, I am. Putin personally views Nationstates as a high priority, and the opinion of Nation States player Laerod in particular. I have been sent in to neutralize him.

Look, if that's how you are going to respond to my argument, then I'll be sarcastic. Keep digging.
Haven't I stated this a million times already: "Georgia helped Chechnya". So can you make a logical conclusion linking "Georgia helped Chechnya" to "Russia no like Georgia?" Are do I have to make the chain for you? No, you've actually not stated that a million times. Course, this is a perfect argument as to why Russia should never have sent peacekeepers in the first place, as Russia is incapable of being impartial in the conflict.
Absolutely. Most recent case: Albanians and Serbs are at war about Kosovo. Albania sends in their guerilla army, Serbia sends in theirs. The Serbs start winning. In come American fighters and bombers, bombing Belgrade. Want more cases? And how does this prove that I'm someone that enters a guerrilla war mid-war to bomb civvies?
Another golden argument. That can be a rebuttal to anything really.Well, no. I wouldn't use it if the person I was debating didn't resort to fallacies left and right.

According to Levitte, Sarkozy's diplomatic adviser, the French President misheard the balls remark. Sarkozy replied: "Hang him?" Putin then replied: "Why not? The Americans hanged Saddam Hussein."

Sarkozy tried to dissuade Putin from this course of action, reasoning: "Yes, but do you want to end up like Bush?"

Putin was briefly silenced before responding: "Ah, you have scored a point there!"

All I have to say there is Daaaaaaaaaamn...

:eek:

You're in a hole...
Keep digging.Keep digging.
No, you've actually not stated that a million times. Course, this is a perfect argument as to why Russia should never have sent peacekeepers in the first place, as Russia is incapable of being impartial in the conflict.
And how does this prove that I'm someone that enters a guerrilla war mid-war to bomb civvies?
Well, no. I wouldn't use it if the person I was debating didn't resort to fallacies left and right.

Umm, ok, arguing with you is like hitting a wall. If I make a great argument, you either say "keep digging" or "fallacy". Also, if you don't like Russian Peacekeepers there, take it up with the International Court of Justice. Cuba doesn't like Gitmo either, do you see them attacking it?

And when I was saying "you" I mean in general, not you in particular. Sorry you didn't get that. I didn't realize that a person could actually think that I am referring to him specifically when I am talking about bombing cities.

All I have to say there is Daaaaaaaaaamn...

:eek:

See, thats why I love Putin.

Yeah, exactly, I am. Putin personally views Nationstates as a high priority, and the opinion of Nation States player Laerod in particular. I have been sent in to neutralize him. You have failed miserably. Your execution is scheduled for 0600 Monday. Good day. *exits dramatically*

You have failed miserably. Your execution is scheduled for 0600 Monday. Good day. *exits dramatically*

Nooooooooo!!!!!!! Give me one more chance Comrade, I shall hack his computer. Bring in those Russian hackers who took down Georgia's website. We mustn't lose this crucial battle for Russia!

Poland, or the EU would not be either Iran's or North Korea's first target, that's for sure. That's something I'd bet all the money I had on. So that's what Russians are understanbly confused about - who's it against? Santa Claus? Also, if it was against Iran, Ajerbaijan - the base offered by the Russians, would indeed provide a much better location, in that you'd have more time to shoot the nuke before it hits Europe. More time to shoot - always a good thing if you're trying to shoot something down, provided all other factors stay the same.
The missiles aren't targeting Europe. Check the technical details: the ones going to Poland are space interceptors meant to catch missiles heading across the Atlantic. But IIRC, the Poles and Czechs understandably insisted on getting something for themselves as well, in this case in the form of the latest Patriot batteries for their own air defences.

Umm, ok, arguing with you is like hitting a wall. If I make a great argument, you either say "keep digging" or "fallacy". You keep telling yourself that.
Also, if you don't like Russian Peacekeepers there, take it up with the International Court of Justice. Cuba doesn't like Gitmo either, do you see them attacking it? You keep pulling out irrelevant stuff and try to stick it to me. Really, how can you expect me not to respond to the overwhelming amount of fallacies you use?
And when I was saying "you" I mean in general, not you in particular. Sorry you didn't get that. I didn't realize that a person could actually think that I am referring to him specifically when I am talking about bombing cities.And when you say US, you actually mean international Anglophone media.

The missiles aren't targeting Europe. Check the technical details: the ones going to Poland are space interceptors meant to catch missiles heading across the Atlantic. But IIRC, the Poles and Czechs understandably insisted on getting something for themselves as well, in this case in the form of the latest Patriot batteries for their own air defences.

Well... Actually the Czech government isn't asking for anything.
That is the reason why lots of people in Czech Republic think that it's such a bad deal.
So bad a deal actually that stickers have appeared in the prague metro with the words: "1989 Red Army marches out - 2009 US Army marches in".

One of the results of this meddling from the US is that in the late regional/senate elections in Czech Republic the left (Social Democrats and Communists) won ALL of the regional governments and the vast majority of the senate seats.
Thank you President Bush, you just brought back the Communist party in Czech politics!

Well... Actually the Czech government isn't asking for anything.
That is the reason why lots of people in Czech Republic think that it's such a bad deal.
You're right. The Polish (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56989) are getting Patriots though. So basically, if the Czech government can't work out a half-decent deal, then voters are probably justified in voicing their displeasure.

You keep telling yourself that.
You keep pulling out irrelevant stuff and try to stick it to me. Really, how can you expect me not to respond to the overwhelming amount of fallacies you use?
And when you say US, you actually mean international Anglophone media.

Ok, are you purposely making your counter-arguments extremely vague? When I make an agrument, I expect a counter-argument, not someone whining about how my arguments don't make sense. Which parts don't make sense? Maybe I can help you with your reading comprehension skills, Kamerad?

And when I say US - I mean Mainstream Media. A lot of the minor media channels actually provide coverage of high quality, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200809--2.htm

"Russia called for an emergency session of the Security Council, but no consensus was reached because, according to Council diplomats, the US, Britain, and some others rejected a phrase that called on both sides “to renounce the use of force.” "

...but since they go agaisnt your viewpoints, you'd rather suck something of Fox News and CNN, especially when it comes to Russia. And make vague arguments. Epic fail.

The missiles aren't targeting Europe. Check the technical details: the ones going to Poland are space interceptors meant to catch missiles heading across the Atlantic. But IIRC, the Poles and Czechs understandably insisted on getting something for themselves as well, in this case in the form of the latest Patriot batteries for their own air defences.

So if they're not targeting Europe, again, why not put them in Azerbaijan? What's wrong with Ajerbaijan - it provides the best defense all around location wise.

You're right. The Polish (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56989) are getting Patriots though. So basically, if the Czech government can't work out a half-decent deal, then voters are probably justified in voicing their displeasure.

It's not about a half decent deal. As Velka Morava said, the Czechs have made it abundantly clear, they don't want the Russians or the Americans, they want to be neutral. Imagine that, someone actually wanting to be neutral, and it's not Switzerland. NATO isn't anything except for a defense alliance, and I don't see any NATO members being attacked, so again I ask, why doesn't the US just let countries be neutral, why must the US waste billions being World Force Police? The Czechs are in Afghanistan, doing their duty, why must they tolerate a radar, if their people are against it?

The Poles on the other hand don't want to be neutral. They want US bases, because they hate Russian and Germany - maybe it was being partioned four times, twice out of existence, maybe something else. So the Poles cannot rely on anyone in Europe, ergo they turn to the US. Makes sense.

So if they're not targeting Europe, again, why not put them in Azerbaijan? What's wrong with Ajerbaijan - it provides the best defense all around location wise.
Because it's in Russian control? Poland is in NATO, it's an American ally and reliable. Russia, well, whatever you say about it, you can't say it has behaved consistently over the past decade or two. And Azerbaijan even less so. It's just easier politically, technically and with regards to sensitive technology to put it somewhere where you can trust people.

And that's taking your assertion that it is a good location trajectory-wise at face value.

It's not about a half decent deal. As Velka Morava said, the Czechs have made it abundantly clear, they don't want the Russians or the Americans, they want to be neutral. Imagine that, someone actually wanting to be neutral, and it's not Switzerland. NATO isn't anything except for a defense alliance, and I don't see any NATO members being attacked, so again I ask, why doesn't the US just let countries be neutral, why must the US waste billions being World Force Police?
I think NATO has demonstrated that it does more than just self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Allied_Force). It's a tool of political as well as military coordination. And being a NATO member means necessarily that neutrality is not an option.

Of course, this really isn't a NATO thing either, as such. NATO (meaning other European members) has asked to get more involved (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/19/content_6001014.htm), and the shield will necessarily also cover a good chunk of Europe itself, but it's not a NATO project. If it was, the Czech government would actually have relatively little room for getting out of it - once the Council makes a decision, it is quite binding on everyone, since reaching the decision basically requires unanimity.

The Czechs are in Afghanistan, doing their duty, why must they tolerate a radar, if their people are against it?
They don't. But that's not a Russian issue, it's not even an American one. It's one the Czechs should be quite capable of figuring out themselves, one way or another. And if it turns out the radar can't be installed in the Czech Republic, then the Americans will have to find another place for it.

The Poles on the other hand don't want to be neutral. They want US bases, because they hate Russian and Germany - maybe it was being partioned four times, twice out of existence, maybe something else. So the Poles cannot rely on anyone in Europe, ergo they turn to the US. Makes sense.
I actually don't think they hate Germany, the Ducks aside. Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel have gotten along quite well, there is a lot of military cooperation between the two countries. It would be silly to think all the issues of the past have been resolved completely, but politically I don't think there is much in the way there.

Either way, again this is a domestic Polish issue.

Anyways, the greater point in all this is that basically the US and NATO have bent over backwards to reassure Russia about the purpose and capabilities of this system. Nonetheless, Russian politicians continue to get all excited about it - and moving missiles to Kaliningrad may be legal, but an understandable reaction it certainly isn't. For there to be a reaction, there'd have to be an initial action to start with, but there was none that concerns Russia in any way. Worse still is the withdrawal from the CFE treaty.

Really, Russia isn't reacting to any aggression. It's finding reasons to be offended by random things and then reacting to those. And whether your theory about Medvedev having to appease the generals is true or not, surely you can appreciate that many people in the West are wondering just what the hell is suddenly going on there.

There is no point in justifying the South Ossetian War. Georgia attacked, Russia responded. Only bullshit wars, like Iraq, need to be "justified". It however doesn't hurt to point out that what the US did in Iraq, is much, much worse then what Russian has done, anything Russia has done since the collapse of the USSR.

It actually does hurt your arguement, given that to do so is a tu quoque fallacy.


Saudi Arabia - lots of oil profit, but corrupt pro-US dictators, economy not booming.

Equatorial Guenia - lots of oil profit, but corrupt pro-US dictators, economy not booming.

Russia - no corrupt pro-US people at the helm, lots of oil profit, economy's booming. Once again your hatred of Russia fails common sense. If Putin's and Medevedev's policies had nothing to do, but rather it was oil, why are Saudi Arabia's economy and Equatorial Guenia's economy not booming like the Russian economy, huh? Why's the Russian economy still growing, after oil fell in price?

Here's a GDP profile, it only goes up to 2006, but it has Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea and Russia. You'll see that both Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea had higher GDP's, and experienced similar, if not greater, growth, than did Russia.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-638.html





The Russian Navy controls the Caspian Sea. Why would they need to control the Caspian Sea pipeline? It'd be easier to negotiate with other Caspian Sea countries to build a pipeline through Russia. You don't need to control the entire river if you control its mouth. Same strategic principle here, but your hatred for Russia once again fails logic.

The reason why I referenced the pipeline to the Caspian Sea, is because it is the only access point for energy resources from the Caspian to reach Europe without going through Russia, or Iran. It's a comparative strategic weak spot for Russia, who, otherwise, would be darn near the monopolist of European energy supplies.



You mean people actually laugh when a "bold" leader chickens out and non of the media are even remotely scared? Geez, that's a new one. Funny though, how you didn't even bother to qoute Mudoch's much more severe and backwards statement about linking Putin and Al Qaeda.

Referencing Murdoch is blatant obfuscation of the fact that the Russian media acted in a blatantly biased and unprofessional manner throughout the South Ossetian conflict. Murdoch is an idiot. He doesn't have control over US, UK, EU, French, German, Australian, New Zealand or anybody's politics or policies.



The Russians have always had a large force in the Caucasian Region. Where have you been for the past two centuries?

The Russian military increased its active force presence North of the Georgian border, increased the quantity of maneuvers, and maintained an offensive armored force at high readiness. The balance of power was shifted in the region, to give Georgia strong perceived first-strike incentives--if they managed to knock out the Roki tunnel, of course. Which they didn't, which is why they got beat.



Defended and maintained? An AK-47 vs. a Grad Launcher?

What would have been acceptable is a massive counterbattery barrage. Russian Artillery forces are, and have historically been, some of the best in the world. The ability of Russian counterbattery radar, and the quality of Russian artillery would have permitted the Russian military to silence the Georgian artillery from deep within South Ossetia, without having taken vast swaths of Georgian territory.

They'd be slaughtered! Something tells me that's what you would have loved to see. Stop hating Russia.

Is this something that comes in a form letter whenever big countries go and beat up small countries?

"*Blah, blah, blah* *Something about hating [insert large country here]* *[Insert no real argument here]* *Why are you so anti-[insert large country here]* *blah, blah, blah* "

Was Russia's victory not brilliant?

No, it wasn't. It pissed off the West, shed billions out of the MICEX index from foreign investors and proved to China that their way of doing things was far better.

Was Russia's victory not stunning? Didn't it stun the Rest of the World?

No, it didn't. Russia is gigantic. It's military is gigantic. It's military is far more modern than the Georgian military. It was obvious from the start that Russia would win.

Didn't they throughoutly destroy Blackwater-like Agency trained Georgian Army?

The Russian military drove the Georgian Army into a retreat, yes, but it didn't destroy the Georgian formations. It didn't destroy command and control (Saakashvili, though, is doing that quite competently).

And if they wouldn't have limited civillian casualties, wouldn't there be a lot more civillian deaths? Like say if Russians tried a ground assault on Tbilisi?

A ground assault on Tbilisi would have so embittered the world against Russia, that the West--off of whom Russia was getting rich before energy markets collapsed--might have gone irreparably hostile.

No, it wasn't. It pissed off the West, shed billions out of the MICEX index from foreign investors and proved to China that their way of doing things was far better.



No, it didn't. Russia is gigantic. It's military is gigantic. It's military is far more modern than the Georgian military. It was obvious from the start that Russia would win.



The Russian military drove the Georgian Army into a retreat, yes, but it didn't destroy the Georgian formations. It didn't destroy command and control (Saakashvili, though, is doing that quite competently).



A ground assault on Tbilisi would have so embittered the world against Russia, that the West--off of whom Russia was getting rich before energy markets collapsed--might have gone irreparably hostile.

It didn't really piss off the West. Certain Western Media Outlets with ties to companies investing in Georgia perhaps, but how can you even say that it pissed off the West? France said that the South Ossetian War simply shifted the timetable in Russo-Western relations one month. There was a lot of initial outrage due to the hard-working liars like Murdoch who went out of thier way to make Russia look bad, CNN even to the point of implying that Russians were killed South Ossetian civillians, thus initially the West had to act like it was pissed off. However nobody in the EU that Russia cared about (read not Baltic States/Poland) actually told the Russian Diplomat to go home, or even uttered the "State of Belligerence" - not war but belligerence phrase. So saying it pissed off the West is a bit silly. US - perhaps, but there are other countries besides the US/UK in the West.

Russia didn't use its gigantic military. The Georgia Military actually outnumbered the Russian Military used in the campaign. The Russians outnumbered the Georgians at the point of contact, because like Stonewall Jackson did to the Yankees, the Russian simply outmanuevered the Georgians. In terms of technology - not entirely true, the technology was similar on both sides. In some areas the Georgians actually had better technology. The Russians had combat experience and better leadership, ergo they won, something you cannot bring yourself to admit. The Russian Army in Georgia never numbered more then 15,000 - so saying that it was massive numbers is blatantly lying.

I'm glad we both agree on Saakashvili's intelligence assesment. Now as to not destorying command and control - the Georgian military HQ, one of them, was in Senaki - an army base that the Russians levelled. Isn't demolishing the equivalent of destroying? The only Georgian Unit to remain intact, was the one in Iraq!!!!

No one really knows what the West would've done. And considering Russia was being cast as an agressor in a war that Russian didn't start, I don't think the media coverage would've been any worse, at least in terms of mass media.

In many ways, the political system in Russia is now much saner and more pro-business than the government of the U.S. - if you can deal with the increased crime, corruption, and poverty.

Knowing how to speak Russian would be helpful as well.

It actually does hurt your arguement, given that to do so is a tu quoque fallacy.


Here's a GDP profile, it only goes up to 2006, but it has Saudi Arabia, Equatorial Guinea and Russia. You'll see that both Saudi Arabia and Equatorial Guinea had higher GDP's, and experienced similar, if not greater, growth, than did Russia.

http://earthtrends.wri.org/text/economics-business/variable-638.html

The reason why I referenced the pipeline to the Caspian Sea, is because it is the only access point for energy resources from the Caspian to reach Europe without going through Russia, or Iran. It's a comparative strategic weak spot for Russia, who, otherwise, would be darn near the monopolist of European energy supplies.

Referencing Murdoch is blatant obfuscation of the fact that the Russian media acted in a blatantly biased and unprofessional manner throughout the South Ossetian conflict. Murdoch is an idiot. He doesn't have control over US, UK, EU, French, German, Australian, New Zealand or anybody's politics or policies.


The Russian military increased its active force presence North of the Georgian border, increased the quantity of maneuvers, and maintained an offensive armored force at high readiness. The balance of power was shifted in the region, to give Georgia strong perceived first-strike incentives--if they managed to knock out the Roki tunnel, of course. Which they didn't, which is why they got beat.


What would have been acceptable is a massive counterbattery barrage. Russian Artillery forces are, and have historically been, some of the best in the world. The ability of Russian counterbattery radar, and the quality of Russian artillery would have permitted the Russian military to silence the Georgian artillery from deep within South Ossetia, without having taken vast swaths of Georgian territory.

Is this something that comes in a form letter whenever big countries go and beat up small countries?



Pointing out that US invaded a country that didn't attack the US is worse then pointing out that Russia counter-attacked a country that attacked their troops somehow hurts my argument? Damn, the argument's in pain, especially with that fancy fallacy you qouted. If you want to counter-argue, English would be the language of choice.

That's a beautiful chart. It shows that during the "Democratic Reforms" of Boris Yeltsin, the GDP per capita sunk, and when Putin's reforms kicked in, the GDP per capita grew and never looked back. The chart also shows that Russian GDP per capita grew five-fold, whereas Saudi Arabia's barely doubled, that's not exactly growth. And all is now well in Equatorial Guinea either http://www.alertnet.org/thenews/newsdesk/IRIN/c7642eb3765e9d5108a0ffb247976a37.htm http://www.harpers.org/archive/2006/04/sb-obiang-eg where the majority of the population lives in poverty. The US doesn't care - they're enslaved to oil. http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2005/61567.htm And after that 2006 report - Rice still met with Obiang, describing his election campaign getting 97% of the vote as, get this - "Democratic". So I guess whether your "Democratic" or not determines on how big of a discount you give to the US oil companies.

The Caspian Sea is controlled by the Russian Navy. If the Russians really wanted to regulate oil that badly, they'd just use the navy to have "accidents" occur on drilling platforms. Who'd find out? Remember - navy - subs, no satellite photos.

The Russian Military Forces have always been active in the Caucasian Region. They increase and decrease forces randomly. It's one place that they've always had an active presence though, even under Yeltsin the "Democrat". Also - Georgian forces knocking out the Roki Tunnel? I'm sorry, do you think the entire Russian Military had their blinders on? "Geez, this is the only way the Georgians can win, if we don't protect the tunnel." "Ah, ok, let's leave it to chance". I mean seriously. What were they thinking? Why do you even bring up the impossible? If they managed to knock out the Roki Tunnel? Yeah, and if they had jetpacks, heck why not give them armor of invincibility while we're at it.

The Russian Media didn't do a stellar job either. But let's not forget that Murdoch owns Fox News and Sky News, which repeatedly seeked to portray Russia as the Devil here. How do you expect the Russian Media to respond? They're still new, they did the best they could, no one's saying they were #1 at it, they were certainly better then Fox and Sky "News".

Also, if Russia was to pound Georgian bases with artillery, then people like you would probably whine about Russian artillery barrages targetting civillian areas.

Big countries have been beating up small countries for quite a while now. But if small countries attack the armies of big countries - then they'll get a beatdown that we, well most of us, can enjoy.

In addition, the current meddling has not gone well either. Russia, backed by India, China, Brazil, Argentina and many, many others, 6 NATO members amongst them, ensured that Kosovo will not be an independent nation.

Um... It won't? News to me. It may not have recognized sovreignity, but if it has de-facto sovreignity, who cares what Russia says? Serbia lost the right to have a say in Kosovo when it carried out ethnic cleansing against the citizens of Kosovo. Russia, backed by multiple states who also have problems with separatist regions, did indeed refuse to acknowledge the independance of Kosovo. So what? The Serbs will not be able to enforce their political will in Kosovo.


Georgia has recently been trashed in the war against Russia, where even the New York Times admitted that Georgians attacked. Flush with two military victories (Second Chechen War and 2008 South Ossetian War) and the economic gains (and corresponding salary/pension increases and tax decreases - tax in Russia is 13%) the United Russia Government Coalition is at an all time high on approval ratings.

It's always nice when your KGB state can assassinate critical journalists and effectively crush dissent internally, isn't it? Putin's Kleptocracy is nicely stable, but that's no justification for his unreasonable stances regarding states no longer under his control.

In addition they've adopted a reciprocal approach (that was adopted but several previous Russian Leaders), ensuring that if US meddles in Russia's affairs, Russia will meddle in US affairs. If US leaves Russia alone, then Russia will leave the United States alone. Reciprocity - basing your response off of someone else's Foreign Policy, works very well to get other nations to treat you right.

Treat you right? What does Russia want? A fucking blow-job? It isn't like the U.S. and Europe haven't bent over for Russia multiple times or anything. Russia does not have the control of territories it continues to pretend it still owns. Guess what? The Warsaw Pact has dissolved. Russia is not a Super-Power any more.

What should President-Elect Obama do regarding Russia? Continue the placement of our strategic missile defense programs where we were placing them before, increase pressure on Moscow to improve its civil liberties policy, and continue to support the state of Kosovo. Whether or not Russia likes it, we are still the Unipolar power, and that comes with certain rights and responsibilities. If Russia wants to play posturing games, it can continue posturing. We shall duly ignore it.

Because it's in Russian control? Poland is in NATO, it's an American ally and reliable. Russia, well, whatever you say about it, you can't say it has behaved consistently over the past decade or two. And Azerbaijan even less so. It's just easier politically, technically and with regards to sensitive technology to put it somewhere where you can trust people.

And that's taking your assertion that it is a good location trajectory-wise at face value.


I think NATO has demonstrated that it does more than just self-defense (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Allied_Force). It's a tool of political as well as military coordination. And being a NATO member means necessarily that neutrality is not an option.

Of course, this really isn't a NATO thing either, as such. NATO (meaning other European members) has asked to get more involved (http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2007-04/19/content_6001014.htm), and the shield will necessarily also cover a good chunk of Europe itself, but it's not a NATO project. If it was, the Czech government would actually have relatively little room for getting out of it - once the Council makes a decision, it is quite binding on everyone, since reaching the decision basically requires unanimity.


They don't. But that's not a Russian issue, it's not even an American one. It's one the Czechs should be quite capable of figuring out themselves, one way or another. And if it turns out the radar can't be installed in the Czech Republic, then the Americans will have to find another place for it.


I actually don't think they hate Germany, the Ducks aside. Donald Tusk and Angela Merkel have gotten along quite well, there is a lot of military cooperation between the two countries. It would be silly to think all the issues of the past have been resolved completely, but politically I don't think there is much in the way there.

Either way, again this is a domestic Polish issue.

Anyways, the greater point in all this is that basically the US and NATO have bent over backwards to reassure Russia about the purpose and capabilities of this system. Nonetheless, Russian politicians continue to get all excited about it - and moving missiles to Kaliningrad may be legal, but an understandable reaction it certainly isn't. For there to be a reaction, there'd have to be an initial action to start with, but there was none that concerns Russia in any way. Worse still is the withdrawal from the CFE treaty.

Really, Russia isn't reacting to any aggression. It's finding reasons to be offended by random things and then reacting to those. And whether your theory about Medvedev having to appease the generals is true or not, surely you can appreciate that many people in the West are wondering just what the hell is suddenly going on there.


It would be tough for Russia to behave consistently for two decades, considering they've had a coup, which is the opposite of consisten behavior. However Putin has been surprisingly consistent. I do see however - that Poland would make a better location due to security reasons. My assertion about Azerbaijan rested on Georgraphy - Ajerbaijan is closer to Iran, ergo more time to shoot down whereever it goes. The thing is, I still don't see why Iran would be a threat to EU, and the Polish missiles don't block Iran firing against Israel at all.

The treaty itself is written as a defensive treaty, meaning that the members would only be required to act if another member has been attacked. France didn't follow Bush's Gung-Ho attack on Iraq, which would be seen as a demostration of neutrality by the new recruits.

If the shield is not a NATO project, why require the Czechs' to participate at all? The majority population is against it, so the US should find another place. Why not Poland again?

As to the Polish-German relations, they're tense. The duo doesn't trust each other - that much is clear.

Also, the US and NATO did not bend over backwards. They wouldn't even pass the Russian Amendment to the CFE within 150 days?! What do you mean they bent over backwards? How? You cannot pass a set of documents within 150 days? Seriously - and then you claim to be bending over backwards?

Also, suddenly going on down there? Suddenly? There's no suddenly going on here. US moves conventional missiles into Poland. Russia moves conventional missiles into Kaliningrad right afterwards, in response. Obama then said, no new action by the US. Medevedev said - no new action by Russia. You are blowing this conventional missiles moving program way out of proportion. Hopefully Obama will do nothing, and in response Medevedev will do nothing, and then we can all cooperate again. Time heals if nothing is done. Just think of your Ex's.

And there's no random things that Russia finds. If the US responded to Russia attacking Georgia, like say France has, Russia's reaction would be quite different on a number of issues.

It would be tough for Russia to behave consistently for two decades, considering they've had a coup, which is the opposite of consisten behavior. However Putin has been surprisingly consistent. I do see however - that Poland would make a better location due to security reasons. My assertion about Azerbaijan rested on Georgraphy - Ajerbaijan is closer to Iran, ergo more time to shoot down whereever it goes. The thing is, I still don't see why Iran would be a threat to EU, and the Polish missiles don't block Iran firing against Israel at all.

Some points:

1. The way that missile defense systems work, the window in which you can shoot down a long range missile is the same. Almost all anti-missile systems target a missile during launch.

Thus:

2. Iranian missiles can be shot down as easily from Poland as Azerbaijan, and unlike Azerbaijan, the U.S. can trust Poland.

and

3. Russia fundamentally doesn't have to worry about this system. It can't shoot down more than one or two missiles at a time. Russia can spam enough missiles to overwhelm it without blinking.


And there's no random things that Russia finds. If the US responded to Russia attacking Georgia, like say France has, Russia's reaction would be quite different on a number of issues.

Hate to tell you this, sweetie, but the U.S. really doesn't give a shit what Russia's reaction is on "a number of issues". Sorry.

Um... It won't? News to me. It may not have recognized sovreignity, but if it has de-facto sovreignity, who cares what Russia says? Serbia lost the right to have a say in Kosovo when it carried out ethnic cleansing against the citizens of Kosovo. Russia, backed by multiple states who also have problems with separatist regions, did indeed refuse to acknowledge the independance of Kosovo. So what? The Serbs will not be able to enforce their political will in Kosovo.

It's always nice when your KGB state can assassinate critical journalists and effectively crush dissent internally, isn't it? Putin's Kleptocracy is nicely stable, but that's no justification for his unreasonable stances regarding states no longer under his control.

Treat you right? What does Russia want? A fucking blow-job? It isn't like the U.S. and Europe haven't bent over for Russia multiple times or anything. Russia does not have the control of territories it continues to pretend it still owns. Guess what? The Warsaw Pact has dissolved. Russia is not a Super-Power any more.

What should President-Elect Obama do regarding Russia? Continue the placement of our strategic missile defense programs where we were placing them before, increase pressure on Moscow to improve its civil liberties policy, and continue to support the state of Kosovo. Whether or not Russia likes it, we are still the Unipolar power, and that comes with certain rights and responsibilities. If Russia wants to play posturing games, it can continue posturing. We shall duly ignore it.

Umm first off, I hope you're not a multi. Those are bad. I heard multies get banned, fast.

Also, Kosovo doesn't actually have de facto control over North Kosovo - you know the area where they didn't ethnically clense the Serbs yet? It's 95% Serbian. Also, the Serbs not being able to stop Kosovo - bold statement. I gotta ask you, did any article, published before 1980, actually mention the word "Kosovar"? I highly doubted it. Do Albanians generally enjoy burning Slavic Churches? If so - I wouldn't be surprised with Russia and Greece having a slight problem with that. If not, how did over 100 of them get burned? By Albanians?

Really, which critical journalist did Putin assasinate? Politkovskaya - you mean the one that was proven wrong before she was assasinated? Litvinenko - since when are double-agents considered critical journalists?

Russia wants to be treated with respect. People like you are the exact reason that Russians aren't helping US catch bin Laden.

Also, increasing pressure on Moscow - continue the strategic missile programs - umm with what money? Seen the American economy lately dear? Also, the US is no longer a Superpower. Get over it. US can no longer tell other countries what to do. Here, an article from the American Conservative: http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-bush-fought-the-wars-and-the-wars-won/
I'll sum up the gist of that article for you: "due to Bush's idiotic policies, US is no longer a superpower.

Finally, not ratifying and Amendment in 150 days, is not considered bending over backwards in any way, shape or form. Oh, and Kosovo's never joining the UN either. And here's a linky to an anti-Putin guy's view on Georgia.

http://exiledonline.com/ames-antiwarcom-interview-on-the-bullshit-war-in-georgia/

Hate to tell you this, sweetie, but the U.S. really doesn't give a shit what Russia's reaction is on "a number of issues". Sorry.

Really? Then why all the US media pressure? Russia would love to have the US ignore it on the number of issues. Darling, please crawl out of your rock, or cave and actually read up on some of the stuff about Russia in the US Media. Now if the US didn't give a shit about Russia's reaction, why do they care so much; can you answer that sweetie-pie?

Edit: if you don't care about Russia's opinions, then why do you want to meddle in their affairs? To waste US taxpayer dollars?

Umm first off, I hope you're not a multi. Those are bad. I heard multies get banned, fast.

Not a Multi. Returning after nearly a year's absence. Old account got fubbarred way back when.

Also, Kosovo doesn't actually have de facto control over North Kosovo - you know the area where they didn't ethnically clense the Serbs yet? It's 95% Serbian. Also, the Serbs not being able to stop Kosovo - bold statement. I gotta ask you, did any article, published before 1980, actually mention the word "Kosovar"? I highly doubted it. Do Albanians generally enjoy burning Slavic Churches? If so - I wouldn't be surprised with Russia and Greece having a slight problem with that. If not, how did over 100 of them get burned? By Albanians? [quote]

Eh... Non-sequitur much? Proove the Serbs having any control over Kosovo before moving onto paranoid ravings based on poor sense of history.

[quote]Really, which critical journalist did Putin assasinate? Politkovskaya - you mean the one that was proven wrong before she was assasinated? Litvinenko - since when are double-agents considered critical journalists?

Politkovskaya was assassinated, almost unquestionably by an actor in tight with the state. I doubt Putin himself called for it. He depends on power-men who are in tight with the mob to do that. Whether or not she was "wrong" (and I've no doubt your logic is based on internal Russian Government claims of such), her assassination was unquestionably political.

Morover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Russia wants to be treated with respect. People like you are the exact reason that Russians aren't helping US catch bin Laden.

Russia will be treated with respect when Russia acts like a civilized member of the international community. If Putin continues to act like a petulant child, he and his puppet government will be treated as such.

Also, increasing pressure on Moscow - continue the strategic missile programs - umm with what money? Seen the American economy lately dear? Also, the US is no longer a Superpower. Get over it. US can no longer tell other countries what to do. Here, an article from the American Conservative: http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-bush-fought-the-wars-and-the-wars-won/
I'll sum up the gist of that article for you: "due to Bush's idiotic policies, US is no longer a superpower.

Honey, you have no idea of which you speak. The US remains the sole economic and military superpower for now. Iraq and Afghanistan have been uncomfortable, but do not doubt for a minute that if necessary we could tighten our belts and fight wars ten times their sizes and win them.

Fact of the matter is that the hype is false. Yes, the economy aint comfortable. No, we aint in the poorhouse yet. I don't buy silly media outlets, let alone opinion media. Scholars still name the U.S. as the unipolar power, and I trust them a hell of a lot more than the hyperventilating jackals in our press corps.

Finally, not ratifying and Amendment in 150 days, is not considered bending over backwards in any way, shape or form. Oh, and Kosovo's never joining the UN either. And here's a linky to an anti-Putin guy's view on Georgia.

http://exiledonline.com/ames-antiwarcom-interview-on-the-bullshit-war-in-georgia/

How about the money and resources we pumped into Russia in the '90s. Forget about that? Thought so.

And I'm not interested in the Georgian conflict. I'm fairly certain that there's much, much more to it than either side is saying, and I'll wait to pass judgement on the matter until more information is available to me.

Really? Then why all the US media pressure? Russia would love to have the US ignore it on the number of issues. Darling, please crawl out of your rock, or cave and actually read up on some of the stuff about Russia in the US Media. Now if the US didn't give a shit about Russia's reaction, why do they care so much; can you answer that sweetie-pie?

Look, if the dimwits on CNN, Faux, and MSNBC are your measure of American politics, that's your first mistake. Our mass media runs on a mix of hyperventilation and distortion. If it can't find a crisis, it makes one. It did that in Georgia, and it'll do it again, given half a chance.

Edit: if you don't care about Russia's opinions, then why do you want to meddle in their affairs? To waste US taxpayer dollars?

I don't want to meddle in Russian affairs. I want Russia to stop meddling in the affairs of nations that are no longer within its sphere of influence.

Not a Multi. Returning after nearly a year's absence. Old account got fubbarred way back when.

[quote]Also, Kosovo doesn't actually have de facto control over North Kosovo - you know the area where they didn't ethnically clense the Serbs yet? It's 95% Serbian. Also, the Serbs not being able to stop Kosovo - bold statement. I gotta ask you, did any article, published before 1980, actually mention the word "Kosovar"? I highly doubted it. Do Albanians generally enjoy burning Slavic Churches? If so - I wouldn't be surprised with Russia and Greece having a slight problem with that. If not, how did over 100 of them get burned? By Albanians? [quote] Eh... Non-sequitur much? Proove the Serbs having any control over Kosovo before moving onto paranoid ravings based on poor sense of history.

95% of Serbs living in the area, all boycotting elections, saying they won't server in the Kosovo police force or firefighting force. Serbs do control Northern Kosovo, which is talking about seceding from Kosovo.

Politkovskaya was assassinated, almost unquestionably by an actor in tight with the state. I doubt Putin himself called for it. He depends on power-men who are in tight with the mob to do that. Whether or not she was "wrong" (and I've no doubt your logic is based on internal Russian Government claims of such), her assassination was unquestionably political.

Morover: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_journalists_killed_in_Russia

Just looking at the list and umm, it wasn't proven that any of them were linked to Putin. You got anything to back up your assertion? Also, only six were killed in the past two years, out of thousands that went out into the field - that's nto as dramatic as you try to make it out to be. Saying - oh yeah Putin was behind it, I got a gut feeling, doesn't really, umm prove anything.

Russia will be treated with respect when Russia acts like a civilized member of the international community. If Putin continues to act like a petulant child, he and his puppet government will be treated as such.

Medvedev is president not Putin. Just a reminder.

Honey, you have no idea of which you speak. The US remains the sole economic and military superpower for now. Iraq and Afghanistan have been uncomfortable, but do not doubt for a minute that if necessary we could tighten our belts and fight wars ten times their sizes and win them.

Fact of the matter is that the hype is false. Yes, the economy aint comfortable. No, we aint in the poorhouse yet. I don't buy silly media outlets, let alone opinion media. Scholars still name the U.S. as the unipolar power, and I trust them a hell of a lot more than the hyperventilating jackals in our press corps.

You read the article that fast? Wow you must be a speed reader.

How about the money and resources we pumped into Russia in the '90s. Forget about that? Thought so.

And I'm not interested in the Georgian conflict. I'm fairly certain that there's much, much more to it than either side is saying, and I'll wait to pass judgement on the matter until more information is available to me.

Of course not, that one shows Russia as the good guy, why would you be interested in something like that? You don't have an open mind, do you dear?

I don't want to meddle in Russian affairs. I want Russia to stop meddling in the affairs of nations that are no longer within its sphere of influence.

Who's affairs is Russia meddling in? Georgia - you mean the country that supported the Chechnya? Or Ukraine - the country that Russia forced to buy natural gas and oil and loans at MARKET PRICES. Oh my how horrible of Russia.

Also you say you want to exert pressure on Russia earlier, but now you say that you don't want to meddle in Russian Affairs. How can you exert pressure on Russia without meddling in Russia affairs? Darling, I think you've been busted. Game over.

Just looking at the list and umm, it wasn't proven that any of them were linked to Putin. You got anything to back up your assertion? Also, only six were killed in the past two years, out of thousands that went out into the field - that's nto as dramatic as you try to make it out to be. Saying - oh yeah Putin was behind it, I got a gut feeling, doesn't really, umm prove anything.

Uhuh. Right. A pattern of the murder of critical journalists isn't slightly troubling. Now, I rather doubt Putin himself approved the murders. I'm sure, however, that he's happy to look the other way on them.

Also: http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=20823

Medvedev is president not Putin. Just a reminder.

Don't insult my intelligence. Medvedev is Putin's puppet.



You read the article that fast? Wow you must be a speed reader.

Didn't read it. Opinion news from a single, low quality pseudo-blog with little to no citation. Skip. I've read his ilk before.

Of course not, that one shows Russia as the good guy, why would you be interested in something like that? You don't have an open mind, do you dear?

Same source. Nonetheless, I am willing to entertain the fact that Georgia may well have picked this fight (and incredibly stupid choice, if they did), but I'm disinterested in the whole issue, because there are pieces missing, and I'm not gonna stick my neck out and try to guess what actually happened, when the information on the issue is so clearly incomplete.

As to closed minds, I'll note that I'm not the shill for the dictator, here.

Who's affairs is Russia meddling in? Georgia - you mean the country that supported the Chechnya? Or Ukraine - the country that Russia forced to buy natural gas and oil and loans at MARKET PRICES. Oh my how horrible of Russia.

Russia should stop attempting to prevent the US from placing a missile defense system in Poland. Russia should stop meddling in the affairs of Kosovo. Russia should stop threatening states that wish to join NATO. Russia should stop using petro-dollars to pressure European states with regards to their foreign policy.

Also you say you want to exert pressure on Russia earlier, but now you say that you don't want to meddle in Russian Affairs. How can you exert pressure on Russia without meddling in Russia affairs? Darling, I think you've been busted. Game over.

Fair. I do want to meddle in Russian affairs when it comes to civil liberties and civil rights. A strong international regime on civil liberties is important. I believe that such organizations should be putting international pressure on Russia, China, Britain, the US and other countries to clean up their human rights actions. We must all be one another's watchdogs, because all of us have some real issues.

It would be tough for Russia to behave consistently for two decades, considering they've had a coup, which is the opposite of consisten behavior. However Putin has been surprisingly consistent.
Well, consistent in the sense that he's done what is good for himself. But what exactly that is seems to change from time to time - BP or a certain Mr. Khodorkovsky will attest to that.

Basically I think sovereign risk in Russia is huge for business, and though likely less for something as strategically sensitive as this, I'd still be hesitant about wanting to place any fixed assets that I can't quickly move away into the grasp of the current Russian government. Hence my concerns about putting something like high-tech missile technology into a place like Azerbaijan.

I do see however - that Poland would make a better location due to security reasons. My assertion about Azerbaijan rested on Georgraphy - Ajerbaijan is closer to Iran, ergo more time to shoot down whereever it goes. The thing is, I still don't see why Iran would be a threat to EU, and the Polish missiles don't block Iran firing against Israel at all.
Well, they're not meant to cover Israel - they have their own Arrow system for that. Those aren't space interceptors though, since Iranian missiles heading towards Israel would take a different trajectory. And that's perhaps a key with Poland as well - you need to take the curvature of the earth into account. But I have no idea, I think the security concerns are the main issue.

The treaty itself is written as a defensive treaty, meaning that the members would only be required to act if another member has been attacked. France didn't follow Bush's Gung-Ho attack on Iraq, which would be seen as a demostration of neutrality by the new recruits.
It's not a "US leads, everybody else follows" alliance, but that doesn't mean it's purely for self-defense either. Member states are free to have their own deals, wars and other stuff on the side. But if the NATO Council decides, everybody has to go along and you can't simply pull out. Not that you'd want to, because as I said, Council decisions are basically unanimous.

Iraq wasn't a NATO thing. Afghanistan was, and Yugoslavia was. So France was free to opt out of the former, not so for the latter two. By the same token, the Czech Republic is free to opt out of the missile shield, unless the Americans decided to make it a NATO-project to be decided on by the Council. At which point the Czechs could still vote against it and shut it down that way.

If the shield is not a NATO project, why require the Czechs' to participate at all? The majority population is against it, so the US should find another place. Why not Poland again?
I don't know. I suspect the Americans asked around in eastern Europe, and the Czech government answered before really checking out what their voters might think. The point is that the Czech Republic isn't required to participate in anything, any more than a country is required to enter into any other treaty or agreement with another.

As to the Polish-German relations, they're tense. The duo doesn't trust each other - that much is clear.
You do realise the two countries actually have common military units, right?

Also, the US and NATO did not bend over backwards. They wouldn't even pass the Russian Amendment to the CFE within 150 days?! What do you mean they bent over backwards? How? You cannot pass a set of documents within 150 days? Seriously - and then you claim to be bending over backwards?
1. I was talking about the missile shield, not the CFE.
2. The Istanbul mendment wasn't Russian, so we must be talking different things here.
3. The ratification of that one is linked to a Russian withdrawal from Moldova and Georgia. Since there are no indications of it happening, there will be no ratification.

Also, suddenly going on down there? Suddenly? There's no suddenly going on here. US moves conventional missiles into Poland. Russia moves conventional missiles into Kaliningrad right afterwards, in response.
Look, do you really think these interceptors will be fired at targets in Russia? Or that these Iskander missiles will be used to shoot down incoming ICBMs?

If not, then the two are not equivalent in any way. Missile =/= missile.

And there's no random things that Russia finds. If the US responded to Russia attacking Georgia, like say France has, Russia's reaction would be quite different on a number of issues.
I'm sure it would be. That would make the reaction to the missile shield no less random.

You're right. The Polish (http://www.stripes.com/article.asp?section=104&article=56989) are getting Patriots though. So basically, if the Czech government can't work out a half-decent deal, then voters are probably justified in voicing their displeasure.

The polish are getting one battery of patriots instead of the ten they asked + other stuff.
Tusk really failed here but IMO he was trying to shore the reaction of the polish opposition after the Georgian war.
For what concernes the Czech Republic the US have just demonstrated that they are even better at corrupting foreign politicians than BAE.

All in name of a system that CANNOT work as publicized (something even the best analisys I read, CDI namely, fail to mention).

I don't know. I suspect the Americans asked around in eastern Europe, and the Czech government answered before really checking out what their voters might think. The point is that the Czech Republic isn't required to participate in anything, any more than a country is required to enter into any other treaty or agreement with another.


Actually they didn't. It has been one of the major problems with the shield in Poland and Czech Republic. The US did not contemplate any other alternative.

The polish are getting one battery of patriots instead of the ten they asked + other stuff.
Tusk really failed here but IMO he was trying to shore the reaction of the polish opposition after the Georgian war.
For what concernes the Czech Republic the US have just demonstrated that they are even better at corrupting foreign politicians than BAE.

All in name of a system that CANNOT work as publicized (something even the best analisys I read, CDI namely, fail to mention).

The Russians used to have one of the greatest intelligence bureaus in the world - surely some of it must still be intact. If they are so bothered by the technology, surely it must work to some effect?

The Russians used to have one of the greatest intelligence bureaus in the world - surely some of it must still be intact. If they are so bothered by the technology, surely it must work to some effect?

Ahem, I'm not writing that it doesn't work, I'm wriring that it cannot do what it is publicized to do.

Ok, are you purposely making your counter-arguments extremely vague? When I make an agrument, I expect a counter-argument, not someone whining about how my arguments don't make sense. Which parts don't make sense? Maybe I can help you with your reading comprehension skills, Kamerad? You didn't make any arguments in the first place, how am I supposed to "counter-argue"? All you do is sling fallacies at me. I mean, you called me a neocon and Kamerad, which just shows that you haven't got a fucking clue about whom you're talking to, but would rather it was some right wing nutcase.

And when I say US - I mean Mainstream Media. A lot of the minor media channels actually provide coverage of high quality, http://www.chomsky.info/articles/200809--2.htm

"Russia called for an emergency session of the Security Council, but no consensus was reached because, according to Council diplomats, the US, Britain, and some others rejected a phrase that called on both sides “to renounce the use of force.” " See, I don't care what you mean, nor does it particularly matter. If you say "US", the logical conclusion is you're talking about the United States as a whole, and not an exclusive part of it, such as the media.
...but since they go agaisnt your viewpoints, you'd rather suck something of Fox News and CNN, especially when it comes to Russia. And make vague arguments. Epic fail.CNN (international, that is) plays a very minor role in my source of news. Fox plays none. What you've just done is commit a strawman fallacy: You paint me as someone I'm not, because it's a lot easier to claim a person that only relies on Fox and CNN is clueless.

That's all you've really done so far, which is why I don't consider you more than a Kremlin propaganda tool.

The Economist isn't neocon, in fact it's the opposite
Economist: Smaller Government (to a point, they still support things like the NHS etc...), socially liberal
Neocons: Biiiig government, socially conservative.

I'd modify the Neocon a bit: Biiiig private corporate biased, with little oversight and a desire to bind their country together, using fear, to achieve the purge of the 'decadent' aspects government, socially interventionist conservative.

Fox plays none. What you've just done is commit a strawman fallacy: You paint me as someone I'm not, because it's a lot easier to claim a person that only relies on Fox and CNN is clueless.

That's all you've really done so far, which is why I don't consider you more than a Kremlin propaganda tool.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was talking about how Russian Media is a reaction to US Media's bullshit reporting. Don't get so hung up on yourself.

I've also said that anyone who doesn't think that Georgia launched this war, is either uneducated or in cahoots with the Neocons. You can critique whether Russia had a right to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but as to who started the war - I mean come on, how do you even question that? Even the US Ambassador to Russia said Georgia started it, US Ambassador to Russia!

Edit: if what I mean doesn't matter, why are you putting so much energy in responding to my posts?

Russia should stop attempting to prevent the US from placing a missile defense system in Poland. Russia should stop meddling in the affairs of Kosovo. Russia should stop threatening states that wish to join NATO. Russia should stop using petro-dollars to pressure European states with regards to their foreign policy.

Fair. I do want to meddle in Russian affairs when it comes to civil liberties and civil rights. A strong international regime on civil liberties is important. I believe that such organizations should be putting international pressure on Russia, China, Britain, the US and other countries to clean up their human rights actions. We must all be one another's watchdogs, because all of us have some real issues.

Russia has never used petro-dollars to pressure EU states. They've said that they'd use petro-dollars, but they've never actually used them. Get your facts straight. And before you yell "Ukraine!" forcing a country to buy at MARKET PRICES isn't exactly pressuring with petro-dollars. Ukraine's government adopted Yeltsin's economic model, AFTER it crashed in Russia. And this is of course, somehow Russia's fault.

As for missile defense system, what's wrong with moving conventional missiles on your own territorry? That's all that Russia did! Western sources are so moronic, (some not all) that they quoted a general who has no access to nukes, talking about nuking Poland. That's like me saying - yeah let's bomb country X. Too bad I don't actually own any bombs - so I cannot carry it out.

As for Kosovo, it was an anti-UN UNILATERAL declaration. Russia has a full right as a UN member to veto any resolution relating to Kosovo's UNILATERAL actions. You do something UNILATERALLY - you pay the price, and if the Albanian Leadership of Kosovo are too moronic to learn from Iraq - then they will get what they deserve - Worldwide (minus NATO & Australia) segregation.

Also, Russians have had enough of imported Civil Liberties with Yeltsin. The remember the Mafia Beaurocracy too damn well. It failed in Russia, epically. Instead of Yeltsin, the mafia ruled. So keep in mind that if you want to meddle in Russian affairs, Russia will take it a notch up as well, and actually begin helping countries like Iran. You may have great ideas, but imposing a foreign system on a country that has rich traditions is blind and idiotic. Not everyone wants to be an American. Why don't you establish your ideas of Democracy in your country first, before meddling in the affairs of other countries.

As for Russia's opposition to NATO's expansion, let's remember the promise made by Baker to Gorbachev, how did it go? Something like "we will not expand into Eastern Europe". Geez, I wonder, why do the Russians not want your help with "Civil Liberties"? Can't be the fact that US already used them as a masquarade to get oil out of Russia, and profit on it, while average Russians starve to death.

US shouldn't meddle in Russian affairs, unless something really bad happened.

Looks like Russia is swinging back to authoritarian rule.

To get back to the question of "Should the US meddle in Russia's affairs?"
The answer is "Da, tovarisch!"
Everyone should meddle in Russia's affairs. They like to be recognised and criticised. Then they know that Russia is still relevant!

Thre Russian people should especially meddle in Russia's affairs and not give Vlad all their proxy votes. (Or they may live to regret it, the way Americans have regretted re-electing George W) True, Vlad is smarter than George but is that really saying much.

Vlad may have to be put in his place sooner rather than later before he and his KGB Mafia poison all of Russia's journalists and starts on AP/Reuters. Now if Vlad killed off the Murdoch press I wouldn't mind so much!

SNIP

My point was, why defend Poland from Iran, when Poland isn't even on Iran's target radar?

Furthermore, NATO doesn't dictate which bases the Russians occupy, and which ones they don't. Russia isn't telling the US to pull out of Ramstein, why should Russia pull out of its bases?

Yugoslavia was a huge NATO blunder - it truly made NATO look like the bully in Eastern Europe. You are welcome to tour Eastern Europe, even non-Yugoslav countries like Romania, Bulgaria, Greece, Slovakia and find out what their feelings on it are. Bulgaria's Government took massive amounts of heat and some rather nasty political jokes for it from its neighbors, "those Bulgarians have their head up their ass" was a mild one. "Backward Bulgarians" was another mild one. I won't go into severe ones.

Khodorkovsky got arrested for going into politics against Putin, fair enough; but he was charged and convicted of stealing and manipulating the finances of the Russian Federation - for which there was a fair trial and ample evidence. He stole - he got busted. If you are driving drunk and get arrested by a cop - you aren't going to ask the reason he arrested you, are you? Khodorkovsky stole, he got busted. The defense of "well I'm being busted for the wrong reason, but I did commit the crime" doesn't fly in Russia.

German units are generally better then Polish units. The myth that all NATO countries have the same technology is a bit bs. The French use the Mirage Aircraft as their main fighter. Germany likes the Typhoon and Tornado. Poland relies in part on Su and MiG fighters. Just by their airforce - they're different, but if you do your research - you'll realize that it applies to other combat branches as well.

If the Inteceptors aren't going to be used against Russia - why do the Iskanders worry you so much? Also, conventional missiles do equate with conventional missiles, because Iskanders can shoot down Patriots, and vice versa.

US shouldn't meddle in Russian affairs, unless something really bad happened.

Looks like Russia is swinging back to authoritarian rule.

How can Russia be swinging back to authoritarian rule, if it never had a Democractically elected leader? (That is assuming you didn't think the elections of 2004 & 2008 were Democratic - I don't follow this assumption.)

Don't play dumb Shofercia - you're beginning to sound like an apologist for Vlad.

To get back to the question of "Should the US meddle in Russia's affairs?"
The answer is "Da, tovarisch!"
Everyone should meddle in Russia's affairs. They like to be recognised and criticised. Then they know that Russia is still relevant!

Thre Russian people should especially meddle in Russia's affairs and not give Vlad all their proxy votes. (Or they may live to regret it, the way Americans have regretted re-electing George W) True, Vlad is smarter than George but is that really saying much.

Vlad may have to be put in his place sooner rather than later before he and his KGB Mafia poison all of Russia's journalists and starts on AP/Reuters. Now if Vlad killed off the Murdoch press I wouldn't mind so much!

LOL! Well I suppose the thread needed the humor, thank you for that :D Russia can be recognized by tourism and trades, they don't need that much media attention, spinning them as the evil corrupt bear. Russian people should undoubtedly meddle in Russia's affairs, and they do so everyday. As for Vlad being too authoritarian, I doubt it. He did step down when required to do so. Now granted he stepped right back up again, but that was at the will of the party. However as long as Russia has KVN - I won't say he's too much of a dictator. Plus you can see Putin dissed on National TV in the KVN quotes I've posted. :D

Don't play dumb Shofercia - you're beginning to sound like an apologist for Vlad.

He has certainly messed up, but to my surprise he doesn't get criticized for the things he messed up. Like say this: http://en.rian.ru/russia/20081109/118209107.html

Instead he gets criticized for defending Russia's citizens against Saakashvili and his thugs. What would you have me do?

Edit: Also - I am not playing dumb. I am taking the arguments against Russia apart, the exact same arguments, made in the exact same manner, in the exact same name of fear and compassion that were made by Fox News & CNN & other mass media in favor of going to war in Iraq. First came the fear: "that evil Putin...that evil Hussein" then came the fake compassion: "Russians/Iraqis deserve better..." It is you who are playing dumb by ignoring the mass media's call to another Cold War against Russia, a call that most people on this forum clearly oppose, by a greater margin then 4 to 1 - and yet I am being called an apologist for starting this topic and defending facts? And this is playing dumb? Someone has to tell Americans and NATO members that their media, (German Der Spiegel excepted) is taking them for yet another ride, just like with Kosovo, just like with Iraq. Same exact shit:

1. First comes the fear: "if we don't handle Kosovo - Yugoslavia will erupt in flames of war" - "Saddam Hussein & Osama bin Laden are bunk mates" - "Russia is evil and Putin wants your soul and to control the World"

2. Then comes the false compassion: "The Serbs deserve better then Milosevic." - "The Iraqis deserve better then Hussein" - "The Russians deserve better then Putin." Ergo we should bomb them.

Same exact principle, same exact arguments, and yet for pointing this bullshit out, I am called a "Putin Apologist" and "Playing Dumb". Seriously? Why not "if we don't handle Shofercia - we shall all become Communists" or "the people of Nationstates deserve better then Shofercia!"

How dare I actually want World Peace, Solar Power, and for Education to be governments' biggest expenditures?!

Instead he gets criticized for defending Russia's citizens against Saakashvili and his thugs. What would you have me do?

I think sicking Vostok on them might be considered "excessive force" :p


Oh well, as long as Saakashvilli learned his lesson.

Don't be smug Chernobyl!
And don't get cocky over a military stroll in the park. Russia got its arse whipped in Afghanistan and it still hasn't beaten the Chechyns.

Also cut that nationalist "we" crap!

And don't let your two-headed black eagle crap over anything either.
20 millions Soviet citizens were killed in the war against fascism.

To answer your question Shofercia, what I wouldhave you do is to fight fascism wherever it appears. Fight fascism whatever the cost! And recognise it!
Don't give comfort to fascists with misplaced nationalism.

It's pretty sick when Russian emigres are giving fascist salutes in Tel Aviv!

How can Russia be swinging back to authoritarian rule, if it never had a Democractically elected leader? (That is assuming you didn't think the elections of 2004 & 2008 were Democratic - I don't follow this assumption.)

I hear they want to extend terms. That rings alarm bells.

It is. The death of that reporter was fishy.

Perhaps you didn't notice, but I was talking about how Russian Media is a reaction to US Media's bullshit reporting. Don't get so hung up on yourself. I didn't notice until you clarified your poor choice of words. It's highly unlikely anyone capable of speaking English would have considering your choice of words.
I've also said that anyone who doesn't think that Georgia launched this war, is either uneducated or in cahoots with the Neocons.
You can critique whether Russia had a right to recognize South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but as to who started the war - I mean come on, how do you even question that? Even the US Ambassador to Russia said Georgia started it, US Ambassador to Russia!Et alors? When have I said Georgia didn't start the war? It sounds like you're implying I said Russia started it, and that would be another strawman.
Edit: if what I mean doesn't matter, why are you putting so much energy in responding to my posts?I'm not really putting all that much energy in my responses, actually.

You know what I'd like to see....seriously......for Russia to be admitted into the EU.

Now before everyone says, "That will never happen, I'd like to caution you...."Never" is a big word!"

Think what a powerhouse the EU would be. Mind you, the Russian Mafia would need to be crushed before the EU would let Russia in - now THAT may never happen.

My point was, why defend Poland from Iran, when Poland isn't even on Iran's target radar?
Which we answered many pages ago when we established that the interceptors placed into Poland are meant to intercept ICBMs while they're in or near space in the middle phase of their trajectory. Since an ICBM targeting Poland would already be in the final phase when it passes the base, the system is not particularly good at defending Poland.

Recognising this, the Polish also asked for some extra defense for them, and got them in the form of Patriot missiles.

Furthermore, NATO doesn't dictate which bases the Russians occupy, and which ones they don't. Russia isn't telling the US to pull out of Ramstein, why should Russia pull out of its bases?
Because, for example, the German government is happy to have the US troops there (plus, those forces were covered in the original CFE treaty and were reduced rather than increased since then). Neither Moldova nor Georgia are particularly happy to have Russian forces within their sovereign territory against their will, as you may be able to understand. Given that the treaty is concerned with the numbers and locations of military forces, NATO is more than justified to make these issues part of the negotiations or ratification.

Yugoslavia was a huge NATO blunder - it truly made NATO look like the bully in Eastern Europe.
Which is irrelevant to the distinction between a NATO operation and an operation undertaken by a NATO member. Yes, the Warsaw Pact didn't have any provisions for any members other than the USSR to act on anything, but NATO was never like that.

I do hope though you didn't spend too much time and energy on writing that paragraph, because I'm afraid it was wasted.

Khodorkovsky got arrested for going into politics against Putin, fair enough; but he was charged and convicted of stealing and manipulating the finances of the Russian Federation - for which there was a fair trial and ample evidence. He stole - he got busted. If you are driving drunk and get arrested by a cop - you aren't going to ask the reason he arrested you, are you? Khodorkovsky stole, he got busted. The defense of "well I'm being busted for the wrong reason, but I did commit the crime" doesn't fly in Russia.
I don't think I ever suggested he was innocent. But there are others just as guilty as he is, or more, who are still as safe as he was before Putin decided he didn't want him around anymore. There's an element of unpredictability in this element of the Russian legal state, which comes because the executive basically dictates to the judiciary as well as the legislative what to do.

German units are generally better then Polish units. The myth that all NATO countries have the same technology is a bit bs. The French use the Mirage Aircraft as their main fighter. Germany likes the Typhoon and Tornado. Poland relies in part on Su and MiG fighters. Just by their airforce - they're different, but if you do your research - you'll realize that it applies to other combat branches as well.
Actually, the French fly the Rafale now as well, it's just that it turned out to be a tad expensive. The point is that the Polish military is heavily integrated into the NATO structures, including a common military formation (http://www.mncne.pl/index.php?menupage=p_article.browse&root=6375d68b7ca97b0ed809d6106721a128&category_id=dec167cae3d3363a5647a88a8c5932cb) with Germany. And if you look at the procurement program for the Polish forces, they're phasing out the Russian-made equipment over time and replacing it with stuff that works better with other NATO technology, including German technology.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Land_Forces_(Equipment)#Vehicles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish_Air_Forces_(Equipment)#Current_aircraft_inventory

So despite the occasional political hick-up, there is no doubt that the relationship between Germany and Poland is on the whole cordial and secure, and very close when it comes to military matters.

If the Inteceptors aren't going to be used against Russia - why do the Iskanders worry you so much? Also, conventional missiles do equate with conventional missiles, because Iskanders can shoot down Patriots, and vice versa.
That's just plain false. The Iskander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskander) is a theatre ballistic missile that destroys land targets. The Patriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile) is an anti-air missile that has been developed in recent years primarily to intercept ballistic missiles. The two are not equivalent, the Iskander is offensive, the Patriot is defensive.

That's the point of difference. Poland puts on a bullet-proof vest and as a response Russia takes out a gun and aims it at them. So yes, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why.

That's just plain false. The Iskander (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iskander) is a theatre ballistic missile that destroys land targets. The Patriot (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patriot_missile) is an anti-air missile that has been developed in recent years primarily to intercept ballistic missiles. The two are not equivalent, the Iskander is offensive, the Patriot is defensive.

That's the point of difference. Poland puts on a bullet-proof vest and as a response Russia takes out a gun and aims it at them. So yes, I think it's entirely reasonable to ask why.

Shortly:
The Iskander is to be used as an anti-radar device, much as the US use the Harm.
Poland has no bullet proof vest since the one Patriot battery that it should get (instead of the ten they asked) has a listed range of 150 miles IRC (assuming a PAC-3) and this doesn't even start to cover all of Poland's territory.

Russia's thinking is clear. The Iskanders are to be used as balancing factor against the radar in Czech Republic. Notice that the main focus of debate has always been the radar, not the interceptors in Poland. This also strenghtens my convintion that Russia is concerned about possible other uses of the radar (mostly espionage, I think) than as a threat to its nuclear arsenal.
Another suspicious thing is that it looks that the US radar will be another model than the one they have been telling (I have no real proof of this, though the information did come up during the debate about possible harmful effects of the radar on the population).

My opinion on the point is that the Russian secret service is aware of some issue with the radar we are not aware of. The Russian government is telling then the Czech Republic that if they allow the US to build the radar without allowing russian inspection of the site (yes, it did come up. Putin said that the radar would be fine if inspectors would be allowed to check in occasionally) they are gonna place their best conventional missile so that it's pointed at said radar.

So Russia offered:

a joint venture in building a worldwide shield - rejected
a radar in another location - rejected
inspectors at the CR site - rejected


How comes they are the bad guys?

You know what I'd like to see....seriously......for Russia to be admitted into the EU.

Now before everyone says, "That will never happen, I'd like to caution you...."Never" is a big word!"

Think what a powerhouse the EU would be. Mind you, the Russian Mafia would need to be crushed before the EU would let Russia in - now THAT may never happen.

Meh... Never crushed the Mafia in Italy and we are one ot the EU founding members.

This also strenghtens my convintion that Russia is concerned about possible other uses of the radar (mostly espionage, I think) than as a threat to its nuclear arsenal.
Espionage with radar, thousands of kilometres away? What do you expect them to find out?

A better explanation would be the potential for an earlier warning in case of a Russian nuclear launch, allowing the US to respond a split-second earlier. Now that's Cold War thinking, and if I had to put money on it, I think that's a bigger concern for the old men in the Russian military.

How comes they are the bad guys?
Because regardless of how they want to look at it, there are no real, material concerns here. The radar isn't going to do anything to them. They are making this their issue, and I don't know whether it is because of paranoia or for domestic reasons - either way I don't understand it.

Meh... Never crushed the Mafia in Italy and we are one ot the EU founding members.
"Meh" is how I feel about this whole argument. Georgians and Ossetians are far away, we have no connections, and the rights and wrongs are murky, so what business is it of yours?
NSG posters will be glad to know that meh (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27758035/) is now officially a word!

I think sicking Vostok on them might be considered "excessive force" :p


Oh well, as long as Saakashvilli learned his lesson.

The amount which the US media glorified Saakashvilli after the war made me sick. Putin may be extremely power-hungry, and borderline unstable, but at least he has presided over economic growth and a general improvement in the quality of Russian life. Sakaashvilli, on the other hand is very much like a certain person who just ran for US public office. He's a "maverick" who makes rash decisions without considering the evidence, and sometimes they come back to bite him in the ass. Case in point, "oh, hey, let's fire cluster missiles at some Russians..."

I have to say I for one would much rather live under the Russian government, who relate to everything in the world like it's a chess game... You may get some stalemates, but at least you won't unwittingly lose your queen in trying to capture a pawn.

I didn't notice until you clarified your poor choice of words. It's highly unlikely anyone capable of speaking English would have considering your choice of words.
Et alors? When have I said Georgia didn't start the war? It sounds like you're implying I said Russia started it, and that would be another strawman.
I'm not really putting all that much energy in my responses, actually.

More insults. Well pardon me for not reviewing my forum posts. I thought forum posts were forum posts and not publication papers. Apparently I was wrong in your eyes. Somehow I'm totally ok with that. Also, you blamed Russia for their response to the war. I felt it crucial to point out that Russia responded, because in most Western Jurisprudence Systems, the person responding is entitled to better treatment then the person attacking. Finally, you may claim to not be putting much energy, but your ability to skirt the issue and the amount of your posts - prove that you do put quite a lot of energy in responding, if not to individual posts, then to overall posts.

The amount which the US media glorified Saakashvilli after the war made me sick.
What in the world are you talking about??? His name was hardly ever mentioned, partly because nobody knew much about him or even how to pronounce his name, mostly because there was very little US interest in this whole matter.

What in the world are you talking about??? His name was hardly ever mentioned, partly because nobody knew much about him or even how to pronounce his name, mostly because there was very little US interest in this whole matter.

Lets see, who called him "a shining example of democracy in the region"- The Economist....

"the last true democracy in the balkans"- Time

"a true friend of America"- CNN.com

do I need more?

Don't be smug Chernobyl!
And don't get cocky over a military stroll in the park. Russia got its arse whipped in Afghanistan and it still hasn't beaten the Chechyns.

Also cut that nationalist "we" crap!

And don't let your two-headed black eagle crap over anything either.
20 millions Soviet citizens were killed in the war against fascism.

To answer your question Shofercia, what I wouldhave you do is to fight fascism wherever it appears. Fight fascism whatever the cost! And recognise it!
Don't give comfort to fascists with misplaced nationalism.

It's pretty sick when Russian emigres are giving fascist salutes in Tel Aviv!

So much orders from a man who cannot even get his facts right. 2004 Russia won the Second Chechen War. Beslan was Chechnya's last attempt at turning the tide. Only individuals who are hallucinating on the hatred of Russia still believe that the Second Chechen War's still going on. The current Chechen Resistance is one equivalent to Japanese after its government surrender in WWII.

Also, stop with your rambling. Russians are not Fascists. And don't confuse Patriotism with Nationalism. Mussolini invaded Ethiopia very fast. The Georgians attacked the Russian. HUGE difference. Seriously, just stop.

And it wasn't a stroll in the park. The Georgian Forces were trained by American-based companies who's never lost an operation prior to this one; nor could the Ossetian Militias and Russian Peacekeepers hold them off. Don't try to discredit the Russian victory by pretending the Georgians were boys with sticks, that wasn't the case. Saakashvili's moronic decision to attack Russia and his purge of his own army - (now who's acting like Stalin - Putin or the Puppet Saakashvili?) - should not undermine the initial intencity of the Georgian Army.

The amount which the US media glorified Saakashvilli after the war made me sick. Putin may be extremely power-hungry, and borderline unstable, but at least he has presided over economic growth and a general improvement in the quality of Russian life. Sakaashvilli, on the other hand is very much like a certain person who just ran for US public office. He's a "maverick" who makes rash decisions without considering the evidence, and sometimes they come back to bite him in the ass. Case in point, "oh, hey, let's fire cluster missiles at some Russians..."

I have to say I for one would much rather live under the Russian government, who relate to everything in the world like it's a chess game... You may get some stalemates, but at least you won't unwittingly lose your queen in trying to capture a pawn.

Would now be the time to point out that Saakashvili has presided over a rapidly strengthening Georgian economy and has high approval ratings, although his treatment of his opponents and his international relations have alienated some supporters, particularly those abroad? Sounds like a certain judo-fighting head of state that I heard about once...

Lets see, who called him "a shining example of democracy in the region"- The Economist....

"the last true democracy in the balkans"- Time

"a true friend of America"- CNN.com

do I need more?

Yes, you do. I'm particularly interested in the Time quote, considering that Georgia isn't in the Balkans. Sources please.

I hear they want to extend terms. That rings alarm bells.

It is. The death of that reporter was fishy.

Terms were extended for the president only. Also, 4-6 years - how many years do US Senators get? Six. Duma still has to get re-elected every four years. Also, which reporter? So far the only reporters that were killed by the Kremlin - or at least have links to being killed by the Kremlin, also happened to be spying on Russia and being double-agents. I'm sorry, a spy is not an investigative reporter. Which reporter are you talking about? Politkovskaya was killed Mafia style, bullet in the head. KGB prefers more exotic methods, see Litvinenko.

Lets see, who called him "a shining example of democracy in the region"- The Economist....

"the last true democracy in the balkans"- Time

"a true friend of America"- CNN.com

do I need more?The Economist is not an American paper in the first place. Georgia is nowhere near "the balkans" so I am sure you have that second quote wrong. And who, exactly, was speaking on CNN.com? Was that one of their own reporters or were they just quoting the McCain campaign's opinion?

Yes, you would need a lot more. I live in America, and I cannot offhand remember many instances of Saakashvili's name coming up at all; I think you grossly underestimate how supremely uninterested we are about ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus. Political junkies were interested, to be sure, but they are not representative of much of the population.

The only American press coverage from last August I could readily dredge up was this Newsweek (http://www.newsweek.com/id/152353) article. I don't know how typical it is of the stories in the American press at that time; but it does speak of Saakashvili personally, depicting him as somewhat of a coward and a fool.

Yes, you would need a lot more. I live in America, and I cannot offhand remember many instances of Saakashvili's name coming up at all; I think you grossly underestimate how supremely uninterested we are about ethnic conflicts in the Caucasus. Political junkies were interested, to be sure, but they are not representative of much of the population.

I'll tell you what I remember - I remember when he cracked down on the opposition who were protesting last year. The Western media were hardly supportive of him and neither were the Western leaders. This whole bias for Saakashvili lacks substance.

SNIP [had something about missiles being defensive]

What are the odds of Iran getting an ICBM and launching it at Poland? Zilch. In order for an ICBM to be launced, you need a country to do it, and nobody hates Poland, or Europe enough to actually do it. Ergo, the "shield" is unnecessary. You don't defend against what has virturally zero chance of happening.

Cuba is not happy to see Guantanamo. Yet the US keep that base. US has bases in 130/192 countries - I doubt all of them are as thrilled as Germany to have a US base. Thus according to your logic, Cuba should ask the UN to remove Guantanamo, and if that fails, attack Guantanamo, am I right? Because if Cuba acted like Georgia - they would have just flat out attacked Guantanamo. What would the US response be? Would Bush have even tried to limit civillians casualties as the Russians have? Come on dude, get real.

There's an element of unpredictability in every state. Your point? Fear Russia because they have a mind of their own and aren't like the US? Also, the executive and legislative actually talk and compromise. If you followed Russian politics you'd know that. Putin isn't the Tsar - he has to deal with the legislature, the local governments, etc.

My point was that not every NATO member has the same technology. You failed to refute that. What may happen in the future doesn't refute a point made about the present.

There is no such thing as a defensive missile. That's like saying there's a defensive bullet. A missile is essence, a big bullet. If the US was to develop the supposedely defensive missile shield that Reagan wanted, then the US would gain an offensive ability via first strike to tell Russia what to do.

It is reasonable to ask why Poland puts on a bullet proof vest, claims its against Iran, and then is worried about Russia getting an armor piercing bullet. If it's against Iran, why worry about Russia? Russia's capital isn't Teheran last time I checked.

What are the odds of Iran getting an ICBM and launching it at Poland? Zilch. In order for an ICBM to be launced, you need a country to do it, and nobody hates Poland, or Europe enough to actually do it. Ergo, the "shield" is unnecessary. You don't defend against what has virturally zero chance of happening.

The missile shield is to protect the US. You need to intercept the missile mid flight, not when its over its target. A missile shield in Poland wouldn't protect Poland from a nuclear strike because the interceptor missiles would be launched far too late.

What in the world are you talking about??? His name was hardly ever mentioned, partly because nobody knew much about him or even how to pronounce his name, mostly because there was very little US interest in this whole matter.

Use Google, it helps:

"Saakashvili & Fox News" - 109,000 hits
"Aliyev & Fox News" - 6,500 hits
"Sargsyan & Fox News" - 1,330 hits

"Saakashvili & CNN" - 276,000 hits
"Aliyev & CNN" - 67,600 hits
"Sargsyan & CNN" - 4,130 hits

"Saakashvili & New York Times" - 187,000 hits
"Aliyev & New York Times" - 50,200 hits
"Sargsyan & New York Times" - 5,520 hits

Are you begining to see a pattern? Aliyev is president of Ajerbaijan, Sargsyan of Armenia. They're in the exact same region. Yet on every media channel Saakashivili easily breaks 100,000 and the other two have quite a bit to go.

The missile shield is to protect the US. You need to intercept the missile mid flight, not when its over its target. A missile shield in Poland wouldn't protect Poland from a nuclear strike because the interceptor missiles would be launched far too late.

Riiiight. And placing such a shield in the Atlantic Ocean would fail because???

Would now be the time to point out that Saakashvili has presided over a rapidly strengthening Georgian economy and has high approval ratings, although his treatment of his opponents and his international relations have alienated some supporters, particularly those abroad? Sounds like a certain judo-fighting head of state that I heard about once...

Except the Judo-fighting head of another state never actually bombed foreign bases without being provoked...and never declared Martial Law.

And that makes all the difference.

So Russia offered:

a joint venture in building a worldwide shield - rejected
a radar in another location - rejected
inspectors at the CR site - rejected


How comes they are the bad guys?

Because Russia's concerns are irrelevant to some of the Western Readers. They are in the center, and everyone else is there to serve them. China to make cheap stuff, Russia to supply them with raw materians, the Middle East as a place to test their military technology. And we're trying to change that thinking Velka, ergo we're the bad guys. Get it? :p

Riiiight. And placing such a shield in the Atlantic Ocean would fail because???


Where in the Atlantic Ocean would you propose it be placed, that would actually work?

What are the odds of Iran getting an ICBM and launching it at Poland? Zilch. In order for an ICBM to be launced, you need a country to do it, and nobody hates Poland, or Europe enough to actually do it. Ergo, the "shield" is unnecessary. You don't defend against what has virturally zero chance of happening.
Who says the reason for the US putting their interceptors into Poland are the same for the Polish putting the Patriots there? I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the Polish are more worried about Russia than Iran. But if that's how it is, then perhaps Russia should be moaning not about the interceptors, but the Patriots.

Cuba is not happy to see Guantanamo. Yet the US keep that base. US has bases in 130/192 countries - I doubt all of them are as thrilled as Germany to have a US base. Thus according to your logic, Cuba should ask the UN to remove Guantanamo, and if that fails, attack Guantanamo, am I right?
No, you're not. First of all, I don't think Cuba is covered in the CFE. Secondly, Cuba and the US have a leasing agreement about Guantanamo, which means that little piece of land is for all intents and purposes under US soil, much like Hong Kong was British (except that Gitmo is legally under Cuban sovereignty). Cuba is more than welcome to state its case before the UN or some other international organ, and I think there is one to be made. But that doesn't equate to attacking anyone.

Let's be very clear here: Moldova and Georgia have asked NATO to lend its weight to the resolution of the problem of Russian troops on their soil. NATO agreed and is doing this by bringing the issue up in a treaty governing the position and number of troops in Europe. Russia refuses to talk about it to Moldova, Georgia or NATO, hence the treaty amendment doesn't get ratified. Two potential outcomes here for Russia: either it will have to remove its troops from these countries, or it makes do without the CFE. They seem to have chosen the latter, which in my eyes is certainly the wrong way to go.

Because if Cuba acted like Georgia - they would have just flat out attacked Guantanamo. What would the US response be? Would Bush have even tried to limit civillians casualties as the Russians have? Come on dude, get real.
Is that the Chewbacca defense?

There's an element of unpredictability in every state. Your point? Fear Russia because they have a mind of their own and aren't like the US?
No, my point is: don't put stuff there, because you might not be able to get it out again.

Also, the executive and legislative actually talk and compromise. If you followed Russian politics you'd know that. Putin isn't the Tsar - he has to deal with the legislature, the local governments, etc.
The local community channel for some reason made a deal with RT, leading to me occasionally getting to watch half-hour news programs about Russia. I am reasonably informed. However, when it comes to strategic decisions, like taking BP's operations or YUKOS and handing them to Rosneft, there seems to be a certain lack of opposition from the quarters supposed to constrain the government when it tries stunts like this.

My point was that not every NATO member has the same technology. You failed to refute that. What may happen in the future doesn't refute a point made about the present.
I don't think it's relevant. What is relevant is that Poland and Germany trust each other enough to handle their national defense together.

There is no such thing as a defensive missile. That's like saying there's a defensive bullet. A missile is essence, a big bullet. If the US was to develop the supposedely defensive missile shield that Reagan wanted, then the US would gain an offensive ability via first strike to tell Russia what to do.
It would. But this is not what is going on right now - right now we're talking about a different system and one that doesn't threaten anything but missiles fired at the US or this installation in Poland.

It is reasonable to ask why Poland puts on a bullet proof vest, claims its against Iran, and then is worried about Russia getting an armor piercing bullet. If it's against Iran, why worry about Russia? Russia's capital isn't Teheran last time I checked.
I think you know as well as I do why Poland is worried about Russia. But even if that wasn't the case, what you're saying still doesn't carry a lot of weight. Say we're in a SWAT van preparing for a mission. I put on a vest so I don't get shot by the criminals, and you respond by taking out a gun and aiming it at me. It doesn't really matter what you tell me about first strike capabilities, I'm not going to be very understanding.

Except the Judo-fighting head of another state never actually bombed foreign bases without being provoked...and never declared Martial Law.

And that makes all the difference.

Georgia didn't hand out passports to the citizens of Ingushetia either.

Riiiight. And placing such a shield in the Atlantic Ocean would fail because???

Because buildings don't float. Are you really asking me this?

Where in the Atlantic Ocean would you propose it be placed, that would actually work?

NATO waters around Iceland would give plenty of space to protect the US. On the other side, off of Alaska & Hawaii. One could also use Newfoundland for Group North and the Lesser Antilles for Group South - like Grenada. There ya go :D

Georgia didn't hand out passports to the citizens of Ingushetia either.

Because buildings don't float. Are you really asking me this?

Giving out visas isn't bombing bases. Again, what would the US reaction be if Cuba bombed Guantanamo?

Beacuase missiles cannot be placed on Subs?! Also, have you never heard of Aegis Cruisers? Shish, you are behind in military tactics, wayyy behind. Aegis is kinda old news by now. And they do float, considering they're cruisers.

NATO waters around Iceland would give plenty of space to protect the US. On the other side, off of Alaska & Hawaii. One could also use Newfoundland for Group North and the Lesser Antilles for Group South - like Grenada. There ya go :D
Actually, that's another layer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aegis_Ballistic_Missile_Defense_System) in the shield. And then there's freaky lasers (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_YAL-1), plus the more traditional final approach defenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THAAD).

Use Google, it helps
Yes, yes, it is easy to find articles mentioning Saakashvili now; but most of them are RECENT, and NOT AT ALL COMPLIMENTARY. You were claiming that, in the immediate aftermath of the August fighting, the US media was full of praise of him, so I tried to dig up stuff from back in August-- as I recall, back then his name did not really come up; we had some coverage of the conflict, of course, though not as much as you seem to think there was (the Olympics, not to mention our election campaign, got a lot more interest), and very little of it mentioned this Saakashvili fellow. I gave you the first article I could find that was actually from the period you were talking about, that actually mentioned Saakashvili by name. It was not exactly worshipful.

Giving out visas isn't bombing bases. Again, what would the US reaction be if Cuba bombed Guantanamo?

I imagine they wouldn't be too happy. But then, if they had tacitly supported a breakaway part of Cuba I don't think anyone would be too surprised either.

Beacuase missiles cannot be placed on Subs?! Also, have you never heard of Aegis Cruisers? Shish, you are behind in military tactics, wayyy behind. Aegis is kinda old news by now. And they do float, considering they're cruisers.

Which is probably why cruisers are currently a part of the US missile defense. But you can't put a cruiser based missile defense system in Poland (technically you could, but its mobility would be limited) and you can't build a missile defense system to cover an attack coming across Eastern Europe in the Atlantic Ocean.

I imagine they wouldn't be too happy. But then, if they had tacitly supported a breakaway part of Cuba I don't think anyone would be too surprised either.



Which is probably why cruisers are currently a part of the US missile defense. But you can't put a cruiser based missile defense system in Poland (technically you could, but its mobility would be limited) and you can't build a missile defense system to cover an attack coming across Eastern Europe in the Atlantic Ocean.

They did, remember the Bay of Pigs? And US still kept Gitmo after that. I think the Bay of Pigs was much worse then giving out visas.

Also, Euroslavia and I were talking about defending the US from a nuclear attack, since Euroslavia was smart enough to concede that Poland wasn't Iran's priamy target.

Yes, yes, it is easy to find articles mentioning Saakashvili now; but most of them are RECENT, and NOT AT ALL COMPLIMENTARY. You were claiming that, in the immediate aftermath of the August fighting, the US media was full of praise of him, so I tried to dig up stuff from back in August-- as I recall, back then his name did not really come up; we had some coverage of the conflict, of course, though not as much as you seem to think there was (the Olympics, not to mention our election campaign, got a lot more interest), and very little of it mentioned this Saakashvili fellow. I gave you the first article I could find that was actually from the period you were talking about, that actually mentioned Saakashvili by name. It was not exactly worshipful.

Read this story:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames

Then follow the links. It describes damn well the coverage of Georgia in the Western Media, it's dead on, and it's a short read, and it's well sourced, and it's written by a guy who's not fond of Putin shall we say, and...just read it.

Who says the reason for the US putting their interceptors into Poland are the same for the Polish putting the Patriots there? I think it's quite reasonable to assume that the Polish are more worried about Russia than Iran. But if that's how it is, then perhaps Russia should be moaning not about the interceptors, but the Patriots.

If Poland is more worried about Russia then Iran, why is the US trying to play off of that worry, which you and I damn well know is b/s; looks like the US is trying to start off another missile race.

No, you're not. First of all, I don't think Cuba is covered in the CFE. Secondly, Cuba and the US have a leasing agreement about Guantanamo, which means that little piece of land is for all intents and purposes under US soil, much like Hong Kong was British (except that Gitmo is legally under Cuban sovereignty). Cuba is more than welcome to state its case before the UN or some other international organ, and I think there is one to be made. But that doesn't equate to attacking anyone.

My hypothesis was that what Georgia did to Russia was exactly the same that the US could have done to Cuba. Georgia attacked a Russian Base legitimately stationed on ex-Georgian territorry. Saakashvili could have brought that case to the International Court of Justice, but he failed to do so. Ergo, the equivalent would be Cuba attacking Guantanamo. It's more then a fair comparison, and just because it obliterates your argument doesn't make it invalid.

Let's be very clear here: Moldova and Georgia have asked NATO to lend its weight to the resolution of the problem of Russian troops on their soil. NATO agreed and is doing this by bringing the issue up in a treaty governing the position and number of troops in Europe. Russia refuses to talk about it to Moldova, Georgia or NATO, hence the treaty amendment doesn't get ratified. Two potential outcomes here for Russia: either it will have to remove its troops from these countries, or it makes do without the CFE. They seem to have chosen the latter, which in my eyes is certainly the wrong way to go.

Russia isn't the one bitching about the CFE cancellation, NATO is. Clearly the CFE was much more beneficial to NATO, and may have hurt Russia. Ergo it was legitimate for Russia to exit an international treaty, provided it was done in a reasonable time frame, which it was, 150 days is more then reasonable, if the said treaty hurts Russia. You want the CFE, you have to compromise. Saying that's bad, but doing nothing yields no results. Russians aren't US slaves, nor providers of raw materials to the US, it's an independent country that isn't bound by treaties the US wants. Get used to it.



Is that the Chewbacca defense?

Nope that's a fair comparison. You damn well know it is, no need to play the Chewbacca card here, or else I can accuse you of "disproportionate response"

No, my point is: don't put stuff there, because you might not be able to get it out again.

Russia can move its missiles in and out of Kaliningrad with ease. Might not be able to get it out again? Is that a threat? I mean are you trying to re-kindle the Cold War here?

The local community channel for some reason made a deal with RT, leading to me occasionally getting to watch half-hour news programs about Russia. I am reasonably informed. However, when it comes to strategic decisions, like taking BP's operations or YUKOS and handing them to Rosneft, there seems to be a certain lack of opposition from the quarters supposed to constrain the government when it tries stunts like this.

The YUKOS top managers stole quite a bit of money from the Russian Federation's coffers. They got busted. The reason may have been politically motivated, but if you commit a crime and get busted for it, still your fault. No one forced YUKOS top managers to steal in the first place.

I don't think it's relevant. What is relevant is that Poland and Germany trust each other enough to handle their national defense together.

Poland and Germany don't trust each other and Germany has better units. They're working together against Al Qaeda for different reasons. NATO's not a single entity, it has many countries, who, unless another NATO country is attacked, should look after their own people first and NATO's Global Domination plans second.

It would. But this is not what is going on right now - right now we're talking about a different system and one that doesn't threaten anything but missiles fired at the US or this installation in Poland.

Suppose that this missile system can evolve to combat Russia's missiles. Then US can do whatever they want to Russia, within reason, because MAD has been destroyed. Thus the Russian opposition to it, and their wanting to keep MAD makes sense, especially, since as you've said earlier in this post the Poles are using this to get missiles against Russia, not against Iran.

I think you know as well as I do why Poland is worried about Russia. But even if that wasn't the case, what you're saying still doesn't carry a lot of weight. Say we're in a SWAT van preparing for a mission. I put on a vest so I don't get shot by the criminals, and you respond by taking out a gun and aiming it at me. It doesn't really matter what you tell me about first strike capabilities, I'm not going to be very understanding.

Wrong hypo. Let's redo this. Poland would not be in a SWAT van against Russia. Also, you put on a bullet proof vest, I take out my regular rounds and replace them with armor piercing rounds. I'm not aiming the gun at you, merely rendering your vest, which you claimed wasn't against me, to be unusable against me. I've validated your very own claim, what's wrong with that?

If Poland is more worried about Russia then Iran, why is the US trying to play off of that worry, which you and I damn well know is b/s; looks like the US is trying to start off another missile race.

[...]

Poland and Germany don't trust each other and Germany has better units. They're working together against Al Qaeda for different reasons. NATO's not a single entity, it has many countries, who, unless another NATO country is attacked, should look after their own people first and NATO's Global Domination plans second.


Second part, particularly first sentence: buddy, whaddya tryin' to prove?

First part: US wanted a place to put the missile defences. Poland wanted to strengthen its defences by getting these Patriots, plus US base in Poland means US would react faster (at worst, to protect its interests) to acts of agression. So they negotiated a deal.

If Poland is more worried about Russia then Iran, why is the US trying to play off of that worry, which you and I damn well know is b/s; looks like the US is trying to start off another missile race.
How do you get from the first to the second? It may well be that the Polish are paranoid about Russia for no reason. But that doesn't mean the American missiles are supposed to do anything other than what the US says they're supposed to do.

It's more then a fair comparison, and just because it obliterates your argument doesn't make it invalid.
I don't care whether it is a fair comparison. It's just irrelevant when it comes to the CFE. Plus, NATO deciding to tie the ratification to the the removal of Russian troops from these countries came before any attacking done by Georgia.

Russia isn't the one bitching about the CFE cancellation, NATO is. Clearly the CFE was much more beneficial to NATO, and may have hurt Russia. Ergo it was legitimate for Russia to exit an international treaty, provided it was done in a reasonable time frame, which it was, 150 days is more then reasonable, if the said treaty hurts Russia.
It's a treaty that's supposed to limit the potential for an arms race and that was designed to facilitate the transformation of Europe from a giant potential battlefield to a peaceful place.

You want the CFE, you have to compromise. Saying that's bad, but doing nothing yields no results. Russians aren't US slaves, nor providers of raw materials to the US, it's an independent country that isn't bound by treaties the US wants. Get used to it.
I don't think I questioned Russia's right to pull out of the treaty. I'm just saying it's the wrong decision for them to take, because it puts dickwaving of the sort you're engaging in right now before prudent diplomacy.

Nope that's a fair comparison. You damn well know it is, no need to play the Chewbacca card here, or else I can accuse you of "disproportionate response"
You're entitled to accuse me of anything you want. But that doesn't mean that an attack on Gitmo suddenly has something to do with what we were actually talking about, namely the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.

Russia can move its missiles in and out of Kaliningrad with ease. Might not be able to get it out again? Is that a threat? I mean are you trying to re-kindle the Cold War here?
Huh? No, I meant that if businesses and governments alike set up anything fixed (an oil well or a radar station, it doesn't matter) on a piece of land that Russia has jurisdiction over, they are being idiots because the current Russian government has demonstrated that it will suddenly change its position and quasi-nationalise (= steal) these assets. So yes, I maintain that the US should never consider putting sensitive military technology anywhere near Russian territory or on a Russian base.

The YUKOS top managers stole quite a bit of money from the Russian Federation's coffers. They got busted. The reason may have been politically motivated, but if you commit a crime and get busted for it, still your fault. No one forced YUKOS top managers to steal in the first place.
Again, I don't plan on arguing that they were innocent. I'm pointing out that the tax laws were used as a tool to take over the firm and make it part of the state-owned Rosneft, while any given number of other fraudsters/oligarchs go unpunished because they either have connections or haven't done anything to offend Mr. Putin. The thing I'm talking about is the years and years that YUKOS was permitted to operate in this way, both under Yeltsin and Putin, and then suddenly the crack-down, motivated by politics. You can't trust a government like that, hence you can't put fixed assets that you can't move out of its reach in there in the first place.

Poland and Germany don't trust each other and Germany has better units. They're working together against Al Qaeda for different reasons. NATO's not a single entity, it has many countries, who, unless another NATO country is attacked, should look after their own people first and NATO's Global Domination plans second.
So you're ignoring how NATO works and how the Polish-German relationship has developed since the Wall came down?

Suppose that this missile system can evolve to combat Russia's missiles. Then US can do whatever they want to Russia, within reason, because MAD has been destroyed.
And if this ever came even close to being anything other than a wet dream of Pentagon planners, we can talk again. Right now, you're talking hypotheticals that don't justify Russia's taking offense.

Thus the Russian opposition to it, and their wanting to keep MAD makes sense, especially, since as you've said earlier in this post the Poles are using this to get missiles against Russia, not against Iran.
Different missiles though. Those Patriots are not part of the missile shield system, and the Russian opposition to that system predated the deal between the US and Poland on the Patriots. Hence you still haven't provided any reason for the Russian outrage.

I've validated your very own claim, what's wrong with that?
The problem is that it is just unnecessary to validate this claim, and the validation includes what is basically an act of aggression. Russia knows that the missile shield doesn't affect it. It also knows that one battery of Patriots doesn't do anything to change the balance in Europe. All it has done is convince even more people in Poland and the West in general that it's up to no good, intended or not.

Second part, particularly first sentence: buddy, whaddya tryin' to prove?

First part: US wanted a place to put the missile defences. Poland wanted to strengthen its defences by getting these Patriots, plus US base in Poland means US would react faster (at worst, to protect its interests) to acts of agression. So they negotiated a deal.

And I'm fine with that. What I don't get is both US and Poland complaining about the Russian system in Kaliningrad. You do a treaty, you get a response.

How do you get from the first to the second? It may well be that the Polish are paranoid about Russia for no reason. But that doesn't mean the American missiles are supposed to do anything other than what the US says they're supposed to do.

But it is a reason for Russia's response. Poland paranoid about Russia, Russia worried about Poland. Works both ways.


I don't care whether it is a fair comparison. It's just irrelevant when it comes to the CFE. Plus, NATO deciding to tie the ratification to the the removal of Russian troops from these countries came before any attacking done by Georgia.

It's irrelevant whether it came before or after the attack. The attack happened. If Russia would have removed its troops, the South Ossetians would have been slaughtered, that much was proven by HRW reports. Russia was right not to sacrifice civillian lives for a treaty.

It's a treaty that's supposed to limit the potential for an arms race and that was designed to facilitate the transformation of Europe from a giant potential battlefield to a peaceful place.

Wait a sec - you want to limit nukes, and yet you're placing nuke-shooters in Europe? That doesn't sound right to me. In order to get less missiles, US produces more missiles, and then expects Russia to compromise. Doesn't work that way. You want to limit the arms race - stop building new nukes or nuke-shooters. Russia will either drop it too, or go bankrupt if you take the smart way out.

I don't think I questioned Russia's right to pull out of the treaty. I'm just saying it's the wrong decision for them to take, because it puts dickwaving of the sort you're engaging in right now before prudent diplomacy.

Prudent Diplomacy? CFE was bad for Russia, they pulled out. I didn't say they couldn't, I explained their reasoning. They're not going to be in a treaty that gives NATO a lot of benefits and Russia nothing.

You're entitled to accuse me of anything you want. But that doesn't mean that an attack on Gitmo suddenly has something to do with what we were actually talking about, namely the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe.

Actually the attack on Gitmo was my response to your, or someone's earlier Georgia comments. I've even said that Cuba = Georgia, US = Russia, switch the sides and watch America's response. Had nothing to do with the CFE, I thought I made that clear.

Huh? No, I meant that if businesses and governments alike set up anything fixed (an oil well or a radar station, it doesn't matter) on a piece of land that Russia has jurisdiction over, they are being idiots because the current Russian government has demonstrated that it will suddenly change its position and quasi-nationalise (= steal) these assets. So yes, I maintain that the US should never consider putting sensitive military technology anywhere near Russian territory or on a Russian base.

So why are you for US putting it in Poland? Are you not aware that Poland borders Russia? That'd be near Russian terroritorry. I love debating against people who don't know geography, too easy. Congratulations once again on defeating your own argument.

Again, I don't plan on arguing that they were innocent. I'm pointing out that the tax laws were used as a tool to take over the firm and make it part of the state-owned Rosneft, while any given number of other fraudsters/oligarchs go unpunished because they either have connections or haven't done anything to offend Mr. Putin. The thing I'm talking about is the years and years that YUKOS was permitted to operate in this way, both under Yeltsin and Putin, and then suddenly the crack-down, motivated by politics. You can't trust a government like that, hence you can't put fixed assets that you can't move out of its reach in there in the first place.

Tax laws? Russia has one of the weakest tax laws. YUKOS didn't pay any taxes at all, unless bribes are considered taxes. You are more then welcome to place fixed assets in Russia, and you'll make quite a bit of profit, like Fidelity Investments did, or LG Telecommunications, or that one German Bank whose name I forgot, or even Ford, if you actually follow Russia's laws. Also, the crackdown was anything but sudden. It was protrayed in the media that way, but YUKOS had quite a few trials against it before Putin intensified the process.

So you're ignoring how NATO works and how the Polish-German relationship has developed since the Wall came down?

I am witnessing how NATO works in Afghanistan. Not so well. And I am rooting for NATO; I think everyone wants Al Qaeda gone. I wish NATO worked better, and yes I realize that Afghanistan is one tough nut to crack.

And if this ever came even close to being anything other than a wet dream of Pentagon planners, we can talk again. Right now, you're talking hypotheticals that don't justify Russia's taking offense.

Russia merely did exactly what the US/Poland did. If the US/Poland take offense, why should Russia not do so?

Different missiles though. Those Patriots are not part of the missile shield system, and the Russian opposition to that system predated the deal between the US and Poland on the Patriots. Hence you still haven't provided any reason for the Russian outrage.

Missiles are missiles. I've pointed this out earlier, I'll do so again: currently we have two missiles, I can kill you and you can kill me. If you come up with a "defensive" missile that can shoot down mine, I'd have to get another missile in order to even it out. See how that works?

The problem is that it is just unnecessary to validate this claim, and the validation includes what is basically an act of aggression. Russia knows that the missile shield doesn't affect it. It also knows that one battery of Patriots doesn't do anything to change the balance in Europe. All it has done is convince even more people in Poland and the West in general that it's up to no good, intended or not.

Poland isn't pro-Russia. It's like convincing people in Strom Thurmond's district to vote for Obama. As for the West, most in the West don't really care about Russian Iskander Missiles. You are one of the few that does. I don't see what the big deal is, NATO moves missiles, Russia moves missiles, oh my, the World's about to end. Shish!

More insults. If you think calling you on your bullshit is insulting, you need to grow a thicker skin.
Well pardon me for not reviewing my forum posts. I thought forum posts were forum posts and not publication papers. Apparently I was wrong in your eyes. And? Is this some kind of excuse for being misleading.
Somehow I'm totally ok with that. I can imagine.
Also, you blamed Russia for their response to the war. Indeed I did. Note that this is far from saying that Russia started it.
I felt it crucial to point out that Russia responded, because in most Western Jurisprudence Systems, the person responding is entitled to better treatment then the person attacking. Doesn't apply in this case. States are not people, and "being treated" implies that the entity is passive and the action is being done to it. A country going on a military offensive isn't being treated to anything.
Finally, you may claim to not be putting much energy, but your ability to skirt the issue and the amount of your posts - prove that you do put quite a lot of energy in responding, if not to individual posts, then to overall posts.Why should I prove that I do put energy in my posts? You made the claim.

If you think calling you on your bullshit is insulting, you need to grow a thicker skin.
And? Is this some kind of excuse for being misleading.
I can imagine.
Indeed I did. Note that this is far from saying that Russia started it.
Doesn't apply in this case. States are not people, and "being treated" implies that the entity is passive and the action is being done to it. A country going on a military offensive isn't being treated to anything.
Why should I prove that I do put energy in my posts? You made the claim.

Wow. No arguments whatsoever. Comeback when you have something of value to contribute, ok?

Wow. No arguments whatsoever. Comeback when you have something of value to contribute, ok?This is a pretty hypocritical statement, coming from you.

Espionage with radar, thousands of kilometres away? What do you expect them to find out?

A better explanation would be the potential for an earlier warning in case of a Russian nuclear launch, allowing the US to respond a split-second earlier. Now that's Cold War thinking, and if I had to put money on it, I think that's a bigger concern for the old men in the Russian military.

Because regardless of how they want to look at it, there are no real, material concerns here. The radar isn't going to do anything to them. They are making this their issue, and I don't know whether it is because of paranoia or for domestic reasons - either way I don't understand it.

Do you really need that spelled out?
From my house in the mountains I have a pretty view of the "methereological station" on the Arber... Only in the '90s the Germans have acknowledged that the structure was used in espionage.
Neither you nor I, for the matter, have real knowledge of what will really be under the protective dome of the "radar". I expect espionage analysts might have a better grasp of the real situation.

"Meh" is how I feel about this whole argument. Georgians and Ossetians are far away, we have no connections, and the rights and wrongs are murky, so what business is it of yours?
NSG posters will be glad to know that meh (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27758035/) is now officially a word!

Well, I do have friends (RL friends, mind you) both in Georgia and in Russia. Actually part of my family is Russian. So I am a little concerned about that area.

Read this story:

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081103/ames

Then follow the links. It describes damn well the coverage of Georgia in the Western Media, it's dead on, and it's a short read, and it's well sourced, and it's written by a guy who's not fond of Putin shall we say, and...just read it.
This is from the August New York Times article they cite: "Georgia’s president, Mikheil Saakashvili, foolishly and tragically baited the Russians"
From the Cornell op-ed: "Many in the West, while condemning the disproportionate nature of Russia’s response, are also critical of Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili for his attempts to bring South Ossetia back under Georgian rule, and of the United States for supposedly encouraging Mr. Saakashvili’s risk-taking by pushing NATO membership for Georgia"
The claim I was responding to was that American media was full of pieces praising Saakashvili as some kind of saint. Most of the coverage (regardless of whether it was or wasn't hostile to Russia) did not make much, or any, mention of Saakashvili personally, and the personal mentions of Saakashvili tended to be negative.

Well, I do have friends (RL friends, mind you) both in Georgia and in Russia. Actually part of my family is Russian. So I am a little concerned about that area.
There are a small number of Americans also who have personal connections out that way. Most of us really have no reason to take either side.

There are a small number of Americans also who have personal connections out that way. Most of us really have no reason to take either side.

Ahem... So, what?
This is an international forum.
People here have different views of the issue and none of us agree on the whole.
People here come to discuss these issues because they are somehow concerned by them.
If you don't personally care about the argument I'm not forcing you to take part of this discussion. Neither is anybody else, I'd guess.

Ahem... So, what?
This is an international forum.
People here have different views of the issue and none of us agree on the whole.
People here come to discuss these issues because they are somehow concerned by them.
If you don't personally care about the argument I'm not forcing you to take part of this discussion. Neither is anybody else, I'd guess.
THE ISSUE, according to the title, is "should the US continue to meddle?" (rather than "Who is right and who is wrong in this Georgia/Ossetia matter", which of course you can go on and discuss without me).
On THAT issue, I am trying to tell you, it is nothing to worry about, because: most Americans really truly don't care about Georgia/Ossetia. There are some, to be sure, who are still stuck in the mind-set of "Russia is bad; whichever side Russia is on we should be on the other", but there aren't nearly as many of those as there used to be, and they were all on the McCain/Palin side of the election. They've lost. They aren't controlling anything after January.

It's irrelevant whether it came before or after the attack. The attack happened. If Russia would have removed its troops, the South Ossetians would have been slaughtered, that much was proven by HRW reports. Russia was right not to sacrifice civillian lives for a treaty.
Instead now civilians on both sides got slaughtered because Russia has no control over the irregulars that call themselves the "army" of the break-away provinces. I'd rather not you make a fool out of everyone by calling the Russian operations there humanitarian in any way.

Wait a sec - you want to limit nukes, and yet you're placing nuke-shooters in Europe? That doesn't sound right to me. In order to get less missiles, US produces more missiles, and then expects Russia to compromise. Doesn't work that way. You want to limit the arms race - stop building new nukes or nuke-shooters. Russia will either drop it too, or go bankrupt if you take the smart way out.
CFE - Conventional Forces of Europe.

Prudent Diplomacy? CFE was bad for Russia, they pulled out. I didn't say they couldn't, I explained their reasoning. They're not going to be in a treaty that gives NATO a lot of benefits and Russia nothing.
It gives Russia nothing? How about a framework for peaceful relations with NATO, or the safety of having a limit on NATO forces and where they're stationed?

Actually the attack on Gitmo was my response to your, or someone's earlier Georgia comments. I've even said that Cuba = Georgia, US = Russia, switch the sides and watch America's response. Had nothing to do with the CFE, I thought I made that clear.
Must have been someone else's, because it really, really has nothing to do with anything we were talking about. I'm putting this one down to you just wanting to mention Georgia a few more times. Watching war on the news must be a big endorphin hit for you.

So why are you for US putting it in Poland? Are you not aware that Poland borders Russia? That'd be near Russian terroritorry. I love debating against people who don't know geography, too easy. Congratulations once again on defeating your own argument.
You must be kinda desperate.

1. The Russian plan was for the radar being stationed on a Russian military base.
2. Polish territory is part of NATO, if Mr. Putin thinks he can exercise sovereignty about it, he'll get an arse-whooping the likes of which the world has never seen.

You are more then welcome to place fixed assets in Russia, and you'll make quite a bit of profit, like Fidelity Investments did, or LG Telecommunications, or that one German Bank whose name I forgot, or even Ford, if you actually follow Russia's laws.
Of course, the enforcement and even the laws themselves can change wildly, as Shell and BP found out when foolishly meaning to put money into things like the Sakhalin-2 project. Seriously dude, you might as well invest in Venezuela.

In the oil and gas industries, which the Kremlin views as strategically important, there has been an ongoing campaign by the Russian partners of the projects to gain greater control, which miraculously ended when the legal system keeps cracking down on the foreign side again and again. I mean, not renewing visas? That's just petty.

I am witnessing how NATO works in Afghanistan. Not so well. And I am rooting for NATO; I think everyone wants Al Qaeda gone. I wish NATO worked better, and yes I realize that Afghanistan is one tough nut to crack.
Also irrelevant. Poland is integrated into the NATO military structure, hence it handles its defense together with Germany. The two countries trust each other enough to do this, arguably the most important task a government has. Case closed.

Russia merely did exactly what the US/Poland did. If the US/Poland take offense, why should Russia not do so?
Because. The. Interceptors. Are. Not. Aimed. At. Or. Relevant. To. Russia.

Missiles are missiles. I've pointed this out earlier, I'll do so again: currently we have two missiles, I can kill you and you can kill me. If you come up with a "defensive" missile that can shoot down mine, I'd have to get another missile in order to even it out. See how that works?
So Russia is in an arms race with Poland, is that it? Then why the opposition to the radar, or the interceptors? Those are irrelevant according to your argument, only the Patriots matter.

Amazingly enough, the Russian government has been arguing against all this long before the Patriots were part of the deal. But then I suppose Putin is a supernatural hero who wrestles big predators with his bare hands...

I don't see what the big deal is, NATO moves missiles, Russia moves missiles, oh my, the World's about to end. Shish!
The world isn't about to end. To be honest with you, I'm not convinced the Iskander missiles would actually work if it was serious - high-tech isn't exactly the Russian military's strong suit.

I'm asking what the hell they're thinking doing it. And if what you've said so far is any indication, then I must conclude that they're not thinking at all, which is what actually worries me.

Neither you nor I, for the matter, have real knowledge of what will really be under the protective dome of the "radar". I expect espionage analysts might have a better grasp of the real situation.
Look, the Czech Republic and Russia are quite a long distance apart these days. There are only two potential options here: It's a big radar, which could potentially track aircraft perhaps as far away as Russia - but there are easier ways of doing that, both NATO and Russia have had the relevant networks set up for a long time. The other option is that it contains some sort of high-tech spy setup - but with the distance, the only way it could do spying from there is through the internet. And you don't need something in the Czech Republic to do that, you can do it from Langley.

Look, the Czech Republic and Russia are quite a long distance apart these days. There are only two potential options here: It's a big radar, which could potentially track aircraft perhaps as far away as Russia - but there are easier ways of doing that, both NATO and Russia have had the relevant networks set up for a long time. The other option is that it contains some sort of high-tech spy setup - but with the distance, the only way it could do spying from there is through the internet. And you don't need something in the Czech Republic to do that, you can do it from Langley.

Sure and that's the reason why the US has refused to have there even Czech inspectors.

Sure and that's the reason why the US has refused to have there even Czech inspectors.
All I'm asking is that you come up with any sort of idea for what could be in there to spy on Russia or otherwise concern that country. That the US military is being a pain about keeping sensitive technology locked away even from its allies is not news, the Brits found that out with the source code for the F-35's computers.

Snip.



Responding to your qoute in reverse order:

Russia is responding. If the US was to raise the cost of visas to Russia, Russia would do the same. Oh wait they did. "As of January 1, 2008 the U.S. State Department raises the fee for American visa from 100 USD to 131 USD.
On the basis of reciprocity the fee for Russian visa (standard processing time 6-10 business days) is also raised to 131 USD, effective from January 14, 2008."

Russia is trying to show the US and other countries that they have adopted a policy of reciprocity in everything. Ergo the missiles, "you move your missiles, we're move ours". Simple reciprocity, that some people still don't get.

Russia's Elite Units are some of the best in the World. The problem is that Russia doesn't have a lot of these units. As for high tech - not a problem for Russia, they've always been innovative; who was the first to use mobile rocket launchers on a massive scale - you know "Stalin's Organs"? Aka Katyushas?

Patriots don't really matter, as no one cares about Patriots in Europe. "The U.S. Army claimed an initial success rate of 80% in Saudi Arabia and 50% in Israel." 50% success rate - you get the picture.

The nuke-shooters are on Russia's border, so I'd say they're relevant to Russia.

Somehow I still doubt the Polish-German alliance is as smooth as you make it out to be. Maybe if you read the German newspapers about it - some bitching about Germany having to carry Poland into the future - you'd know more and wouldn't say "case closed!"

How dare the Russian Government use Russia's resources to benefit Russia, not Chevron?! NATO must invade at once!

Sakhalin Project? You mean where Shell and BP thought the Laws of the Russian Federation do not apply to them, and lost their assets? Granted the punishment may have been harsh, but Shell and BP broke laws and got punished for it. You make it look like evil Russia is out to get noble Western Companies. Let me repeat for you: if you go into Russia and follow the laws of the Russian Federation, your business will thrive, see Fidelity Investments, Deutchbank, LG Telesystems, et al.

If you think that Russia's even thinking about invading Poland, you need a serious ass-whooping by REALITY.

Yes watching the South Ossetian War was a pleasure for me. Saakashvili, the slimy dictator who killed Badri Pakriashvili and had his goons steal all of Pakriashvili's property and who thought he was above common sense, got slapped down by the Russian Caucasian Army who had a major victory long overdue. It was a pleasure to watch. Bad guy attacks, good guy kicks ass. Why should I be ashamed? Russia didn't start the war, all sane evidence points to Georgia as starting it, including US Ambassador to Russia. So yeah, it was a pleasure to watch, didn't enjoy civilian deaths on either side, though.

NATO isn't going to invade Russia, so Russia doesn't really care about that. CFE benefited NATO at the expense of Russia. You gotta learn to give Russia what they want if you want to deal with Russia, not what you think would be good for them.

Finally, if Russia hadn't gone in a lot more civilians, then 2,000 would be dead. The current number of dead civilians is under 2,000. Thus by going in, Russia actually saved civilian lives.

Let me point out that it is in this game of action/reaction that Russia withdrew from the CFE.
It was a reaction to the US withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in June 2002.

All I'm asking is that you come up with any sort of idea for what could be in there to spy on Russia or otherwise concern that country. That the US military is being a pain about keeping sensitive technology locked away even from its allies is not news, the Brits found that out with the source code for the F-35's computers.

Sure, so you can dismiss it as either conspiracy theory, paranoia or outright SF.
My point about this argument is that Russia feels threathened and is taking steps (diplomatic and military) against this percieved threat.