eyedrb, i know. i was being sarcastic.

8/14/2008 7:04:17 AM

sorry hoss its hard to tell sometimes on message boards.

The two have little in common to anyone being honest with themselves.

I just dont see us engagign the russians or vice versa.

8/14/2008 10:09:35 AM

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1045030/Video-Georgian-TV-reporter-shot-Russian-sniper-live-broadcast-carries-report-bleeding-arm.html


wow, you kids need to watch this

"This is the dramatic moment a TV reporter was shot by a sniper as she reported live from war-torn Georgia.

Tamara Urushadze took a bullet to her left arm in the flashpoint town of Gori as Russian forces continued their illegal occupation.

Bravely, or foolishly, the 32-year-old brunette continued her report after a few moments as other journalists and aid workers dashed for cover.

iege-town Gori has become a deadly 'sniper's alley' with citizens at the mercy of rampaging militiamen - believed to be from the breakaway republic South Ossetia - looting and firing guns, some drunkenly.

The Kremlin stands accused of turning a blind eye to renegades bent on 'ethnic cleansing' in revenge for Georgia's ill-conceived invasion of South Ossetia last Friday.

But in turn Moscow blames the Georgians for abandoning their own people."

8/14/2008 3:51:44 PM

We will protect Georgia. If this conflict escalates, so be it.

[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 4:41 PM. Reason : -]

8/14/2008 4:39:15 PM

Why do you want to risk nuclear war over some third world country full of Borats?

8/14/2008 5:29:32 PM

Quote :

"who would you say is the US's biggest threat (don't go being a Russia resurgence person on me... that's silly)"

nastoute - 7/16/2008 4:23:38 PM

http://www.thewolfweb.com/message_topic.aspx?topic=533979&page=1

Wrong again.

8/14/2008 6:00:47 PM

therefore

that which was demonstrated

and so on

and so forth

8/14/2008 6:12:51 PM

8/14/2008 6:17:05 PM

^^^^ you do realize that Russia will NOT go nuclear over this. MAD applies today as much as it ever did.

8/14/2008 9:05:12 PM

Even more so since the people in power are plutocrats rather than fanatic ideologues; that applies to both sides. They care too much about themselves and their power to throw it all away on principal and the sliver of hope that what rises from the ashes would be their kind of society.

The fact that we are also ruled by similar minded groups is also what makes it unlikely that we will actually intervene. Although Russia would likely not retaliate in a nuclear fashion, a confrontation with them would still be incredibly damaging and expensive (politically as well as financially.) The same self-interest that would keep any conflict over Georgia from becoming nuclear will also be very likely to keep us out of it in any meaningful way.

[Edited on August 14, 2008 at 9:21 PM. Reason : ]

8/14/2008 9:19:01 PM

^^ Agreed. Nuclear war is more likely to be started by a third world nation or non-state actor than it is by two nation-states. The unusual factor here is that, unlike Korea, Vietnam or Afghanistan in the 80s, we would not be fighting through proxies but directly.

Western style liberal democracy has been taken for granted in the nearly 20 years since the Berlin wall fell but its survival is by no means guaranteed. The emergence of China as a world power, the resurgence of totalitarian Russia and the ever present threat of fundamentalist Islam all pose alternative futures to the Enlightenment tradition.

8/14/2008 9:38:47 PM

Quote :

"The Kremlin stands accused of turning a blind eye to renegades bent on 'ethnic cleansing' in revenge for Georgia's ill-conceived invasion of South Ossetia last Friday."

Was not the whole reason for Russia getting involved was Georgia committing "ethnic cleansing" against extra-national Russians who were pushing for independence.

8/14/2008 10:42:22 PM

The Georgians weren't ethnically cleansing in S. Ossetia. Just something the Russians could say so they could invade and then yet the Ossetians do the dirty work of removing ethnic Georgians from the region. Hell, I don't remember the Human Rights organization, but one of them if said that Russia was lying about this.

Look up census statistics for Abkhazia, where a minority(Abkhazians) support by Russia killed/removed about 80% of the Georgians in that region, Georgians going from a majority to a minority. Course the West took a blind eye to that because it wasn't on their doorstep, unlike Yugoslavia.

8/14/2008 11:19:23 PM

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7562393.stm

Quote :

"Ms Rice will fly to the Georgian capital on Friday to present Mr Saakashvili with the formal ceasefire agreement, which she was given by French President Nicolas Sarkozy when they met at his summer residence in the south of France"

Well I guess there won't be any large scale Russian advances until at least Monday if ever. Maybe they'll be satisfied with South Ossetia and showing the other ex-Soviet block nations that they can and will use military force even on countries ready to join NATO.

8/15/2008 3:10:48 AM

Quote :

"The Georgians Iraqi's weren't ethnically cleansing in S. Ossetia building WMDs or involved in 9/11. Just something the Russians US could say so they could invade and then yet the Ossetians do the dirty work of removing to install an American friendly gov't in the worlds 2nd largest oil reserve"

Fixed It

8/15/2008 12:55:50 PM

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92IQNFG1&show_article=1

Quote :

"WASHINGTON (AP) - President Bush on Friday accused Russia of "bullying and intimidation" in its harsh military treatment of Georgia, saying the people in the former Soviet republic have chosen freedom and "we will not cast them aside.""

Who's your daddy?

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 1:37 PM. Reason : -]

8/15/2008 1:33:03 PM

Quote :

"bullying and intimidation"

Pot meet Kettle; you'd think the Bush administration has lost all credibility to call out another nation for invading another nation under controversial circumstances. But then again politicians on both sides of the aisle are always hypocrites.

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 1:36 PM. Reason : l]

8/15/2008 1:34:25 PM

yeah i just saw on bbc he even said something like

"the cold war is over; foreign policies should not be based on bullying and intimidation anymore"

i swear to god, he will burn in the deepest pits of hell.

8/15/2008 3:05:31 PM

Quote :

"Fixed It"

What does the US/Iraq have to do with Russia/Georgia? Red Herring. Whatever beef you have over the US invading Iraq you should take it to a discussion about that.

So, because America took down a genocidal totalitarian that gives the right to Russia to invade a democratic country and to let the local populace kill a particular ethnic group? gtfo

8/15/2008 3:40:13 PM

Quote :

"A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported. The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations."

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie3N_5xk8Z20qcSJG0MilftDpsLwD92ISLK00

The Russians have gone off the deep end.

8/15/2008 3:51:10 PM

OK, saw it on CNN again, and here it is word by word:

Quote :

"Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy."

Right. And what has Bush been doing for 8 years? Threatening countries and peoples left and right, giving ultimatums, attacking and bombing, bullying other countries to supporting his perverted agenda by saying "You are with us or against us", etc.

As I said, the deepest pits in hell are reserved for him. Hope he will enjoy hanging out with Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin, Osama, etc.... forever. Well if he doesn't, at least the warmongering members of his cabinet will be there to keep him company.

8/15/2008 4:06:37 PM

Quote :

"As I said, the deepest pits in hell are reserved for him. Hope he will enjoy hanging out with Hitler, Saddam, Idi Amin, Osama, etc.... forever. Well if he doesn't, at least the warmongering members of his cabinet will be there to keep him company."

tell us how you really feel

8/15/2008 4:13:22 PM

I have no idea what you mean.

I don't hide my views or lie about them. I say what I think and believe in.

8/15/2008 4:22:32 PM

i mean your comments sounded pretty harsh..."the deepest pits of hell"

8/15/2008 4:28:39 PM

well yeah... you know, if there is a god, and if there will be a reckoning, and if hell exists and is all brimstone and fire, then who do you think will be in the most torturous sections of hell?

those who killed many many people, whether by their own hands, or by giving orders to others, directly, or indirectly. and tortured some of them as well.

8/15/2008 4:32:33 PM

so basically every single leader of any country ever

i mean who, in charge of a country, hasnt at least indirectly given orders to kill people

8/15/2008 4:37:34 PM

well are you contesting that killing is a sin? and killing thousands is worse than killing a few?

some have killed more than others. obviously those who have sinned more will be punished more. some leaders (very few) have killed none. some have killed a few. some thousands. and some millions.

so yes, it is just common sense and logical that those who have killed/tortured/raped the greatest numbers will be the worst off.

8/15/2008 5:12:20 PM

Quote :

"What does the US/Iraq have to do with Russia/Georgia? Red Herring. Whatever beef you have over the US invading Iraq you should take it to a discussion about that."

the point is Bush is condemning Russia for its use of force; by claiming "foreign policies should not be based on bullying and intimidation anymore" which is hypocritical considering the US foreign policy over the last 8 years. Regardless of rather Georgia is the free, poor, rich in oil, totalitarian, democratic, or is Bush's favorite party spot. I have no problem with Bush officially condemning the invasion. My problem is the manner in which he is war-hawking the Georgia issue and the premise of his opposition that "foreign policies should not be based on bullying and intimidation anymore".

Perhaps if he put more thought into his speeches and used more intelligent legitimate arguments to demand Russia's withdrawal I would have respected his move.

What is next Bush is going to add Russia to the "axis of evil" . On the other hand as a whole our population is so dumb that maybe we have to spout out threats and arguments that are on the 3rd grade level. Russia's a meany head evil country; get out of the land of our freedom loving BFF's

This is neglecting the fact that it should be the EU or [insert]middle eastern or central asian country here[/insert] problem. We could still show our support by being the "big guy" showing support in the background while someone else steps out to tell Russia to cut this shit out.

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 5:23 PM. Reason : ll]

8/15/2008 5:20:43 PM

Quote :

"A top Russian general said Friday that Poland's agreement to accept a U.S. missile interceptor base exposes the ex-communist nation to attack, possibly by nuclear weapons, the Interfax news agency reported. The statement by Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn is the strongest threat that Russia has issued against the plans to put missile defense elements in former Soviet satellite nations. http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5ie3N_5xk8Z20qcSJG0MilftDpsLwD92ISLK00 The Russians have gone off the deep end."

Ytsejam

This was conveniently overlooked here. I mean, this is some pretty damned heavy-handed saber-rattling for these times, wouldn't you say?

8/15/2008 5:41:41 PM

Quote :

"This was conveniently overlooked here. I mean, this is some pretty damned heavy-handed saber-rattling for these times, wouldn't you say?"

What do you mean by "for these times"? The US has been making power grabs with foreign military engagements for years now.

8/15/2008 5:47:16 PM

I think he means that it's not the Cold War anymore.

8/15/2008 5:57:22 PM

They're going to attack Poland whether or not the missiles are there because of Nato. I still don't want the US to waste money on it though.

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 6:00 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2008 5:59:29 PM

Quote :

"I think he means that it's not the Cold War anymore."

So Russia resisting or resenting US military fixtures in Eastern Europe is saber rattling on THEIR part? Really?

It may not officially be the Cold War but if you push Russia around or attempt to intimidate it there will be consequences. The fact that some people here can't think about this from the other perspective is not surprising but it's disconcerting.

8/15/2008 6:12:50 PM

In this case, America is saber rattling in Poland as an form of punishment of Russia. In a round about way, "if you don't want us in your backyard then keep your backyard clean."

This is not an escallation in any sense because a missile defense battery is just that, as it is incapable of being used offensively.

8/15/2008 6:16:36 PM

No, Russia threatening to NUKE Poland was saber-rattling on their part.

When is the last time you heard a nation threatening to use a nuclear weapon on another?

C'mon. There is no other perspective. Russia is out of control.

8/15/2008 6:18:34 PM

It absolutely IS an escalation unless you think disarming a foe isn't an obvious, direct way of threatening them with your readied weapon.

Quote :

"When is the last time you heard a nation threatening to use a nuclear weapon on another?"

Explicitly? Not really often. Implicitly all the damn time. Why else do people want to join club nuke?

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 6:19 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2008 6:18:49 PM

Quote :

"Why else do people want to join club nuke?"

Defense and deterrence. Countries just don't threaten to drop nuclear bombs on other countries they are not at war with.

How can you not see that threat as some hardcore saber-rattling?

8/15/2008 6:24:56 PM

^^ Sweet Jesus--explicitly is the goddamned point! Any country that possesses nuclear weapons gives an implication of their possible use simply by possessing them.

Are you really this stupid? And your equivocation is extremely tiresome.

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 6:27 PM. Reason : .]

8/15/2008 6:26:53 PM

Quote :

"Defense and deterrence. Countries just don't threaten to drop nuclear bombs on other countries they are not at war with. How can you not see that threat as some hardcore saber-rattling?"

Oh yeah, THAT is -- but resisting the US military fixture is not saber-rattling.

8/15/2008 6:34:08 PM

Quote :

"So Russia resisting or resenting US military fixtures in Eastern Europe is saber rattling on THEIR part? Really?"

Hypocrisy and past US/Soviet Union relations can be tied in with the Olympics. During the opening games this week the media was bashing Russia while praising China for "saving" the olympics in the 1984 . The soviet union at the time was rallying other nations to boycott the LA games to which 40+ nations did not show up. I am no fan of the commies but they failed to mention that 4 years previous the US and many other "western" nations decided to not attend the olympics that were held in Moscow. Many people watching unless they older and remember probably have no clue that the US played immature 7 yr old before the Soviet Union did.

When it comes to my on US foreign policy I do not always have a problem with what we are doing or why (even if for sole greed). I just can not stand the hypocrisy, lying, and the "out shit don't stink attitude" when it justifying our decisions and responding to the actions of other nations.

Quote :

"When is the last time you heard a nation threatening to use a nuclear weapon on another?"

India/Pakistan a couple years back?

[Edited on August 15, 2008 at 6:53 PM. Reason : l]

8/15/2008 6:50:56 PM

listen, this is easier if we just blame america

we are the great satan right?

8/15/2008 9:44:05 PM

It is me. I am the great satan.

8/15/2008 10:49:02 PM

No, I'm spartacus.

8/15/2008 11:28:39 PM

Quote :

"listen, this is easier if we just blame america we are the great satan right?"

I'm pretty sure it's way easier if we're nationalist assholes that view the world in black (them) and white (us).

8/15/2008 11:55:58 PM

well, it's obvious what we have to do now...


bomb iran

8/16/2008 2:06:59 PM

I saw an analyst claim as a result of this invasion that Putin is the world's most effective leader. And ... well, he's right. Russia played off this obviously premeditated, strategic act of violence as a tactical decision -- and very many people bought their rhetoric. They waited until just the right moment and pounced, ruthlessly, and lied with such a straight face that would make the best poker player blink.

Unfortunately Russia has also shown itself for what it is -- a destabilizing force. There's no greater threat to the modern world than a regional bully that puts its own interests over those of individual states; especially with regards to self-determined, transparent government.

The message here is that if any of these border states act contrary to Russia's interests, then they will be ruthlessly crushed at the first opportunity. That is a strong message, and it's completely unacceptable. Today the sticky issue is membership in NATO -- that offends Russia. What will it be tomorrow? Developing an open business center that challenges Russian economic interests?

Unfortunately very much of the world is run by these mafia-like plutocrats who believe that shoring up power is synonymous with control. Their aims are, ironically, self-defeating. The Chinese figured this out -- Deng knew that by opening up markets and culture, that China would be much more powerful than as a mere strong-arming bully.

So Putin is likely the most effective leader in the world, but also the one with the most tunnel vision. His strategic aims don't make sense except in the context of his own mirror. Even if his goal is to shore up Russia's power into an authoritarian, global state, then he'd be better off following the China model more closely than creating these international shit-storms.

8/16/2008 5:35:26 PM

Quote :

"I think it's time we show the Russians we mean business. Our ground troops are certainly over-extended in Iraq and Afghanistan, but our air-to-air forces are useless in those two conflicts. Thus, we should move a couple squadrons of F-16s and a couple of squadrons of F-22s into our air bases in Turkey. As well, we should move some A-10s (air-to-ground, I know) there as well. If we can, we should move some Apaches there, too, but that would be a nice bonus. Finally, if we have any armored forces in Iraq that we can spare, we should park them on the Turkey/Georgia border. As soon as the warthogs are in Turkey, we send russia a nice little letter which says the following: Halt the advance of all ground forces in Georgia within 3 hours. Have all ground forces in Georgia turn around and head North to Russia within 6 hours. Have all ground forces OUT of Georgia in 24 hours. Any ground forces still advancing towards Georgian cities after 3 hours will be destroyed by American aircraft. Any ground forces not heading for the Russian border after 6 hours will be destroyed. And, shocker, any ground forces still in Georgia after 24 hours will be destroyed."

8/16/2008 6:59:38 PM

yeah an open war with russia is what we really need.

8/16/2008 8:23:19 PM

well, it's coming, whether you like it or not. Or, we can try appeasement again, and see how that works out...

8/16/2008 8:30:37 PM

appeasement did work last time, I must confess.

That said, while it is defensible to believe a communist state as practiced in Soviet Russia is destined to collapse into surrender if you can simply wait long enough, the same cannot yet be said for totalitarian corporatist states, as exists in today's Russia.

8/16/2008 10:01:55 PM