Lets see what the mighty EU does about this in their back yard?

I bet they will issue a stern warning and then call it the day.

Since the USA is busy it looks like it is up to Africa to solve this one.

Do you honestly think the US would risk any sort of physical confrontation with Russia even if we weren't in two other wars?

Good opportunity to get Bush image up? Let's do it!

Really, though, I am not into politics (at least, about old USSR states), but you cannot attack a country and expect all the hostilities to be held there. Georgia attacked an area, which Russia protects. Were they really expecting Russia to let them do it? Then, Russia attacks Georgia, and Georgia asks for a truce. I mean, what were they thinking? That US would attack Russia?

As I said, I have no idea about what happens there, so my assumptions could be wrong.

What would you do? Invade Georgia?
Hey, you know, maybe we should invade Great-Britain as well and solve the issue of Northern Ireland for them. While we're at it, we can invade Spain as well an liberate the Basques. Oh, and lets not forget: we should invade Israel too because of all the trouble going on there. Yes, definitely good solutions all!

Our little town of Loviisa (8000 inhabitants) is going to incorporate three of the neighbour municipalities after 18 months. But two villages in one of the municipalities would rather be incorporated with the town of Porvoo, a bigger town 45 km to the west from Loviisa. Please help us out, USA!

Of course. What did you think? Here, countries concentrate their money on peoples well-being and other useful things. They don't like to spend money on wars that we do not need nor should be having.

Nuke the Ruskies.

Which Georgia?
http://valleywag.com/5034988/google-news-informs-us-that-the-russians-are-invading-the-south

The problem there is going on since Dzhugashvili (Stalin) was at power. For the time being it is the area protected by Russia, so let them sort that out.

See the difference? Russia has borders with that area, it has been under their protection so they care. Iraq and Afghanistan were a sovereing states and yet still USA cared and made them under their protection...

EDIT:
Oh nice, now I read in news that G. W. Bush called for end of russian bombardment. Now that's interesting, when others called for stopping american invasion to sovereing states, they didn't listen. What mr. Bush expects now? That thing that is allowed for USA isn't allowed for others?

I found that amusing too. Maybe Alabama will come help ...

People keep missing memos for some reason

The US isn't accountable to anyone, thus they can do whatever they want.

So is Russian federation then, in my opinion.

Wait, what's the problem? The Russians are already dealing with this!

Well, one can't help but wonder why anyone should listen to a country that only abides by international law and treaties as long as it serves their own interests. Out of fear for being nuked into submission?

The problem isn't anywhere, I said that Russians do care. I was just amused by irony of american reaction.

Or things like trade/economic sanctions, but that kind of tactic wont work for much longer, it already doesn't work on places like Iran. Just imagine, the US has already done a wringer on Canada, and we were its best friend and ally.

Apparently we can't subsidise, or even trade on an equal level with them without some sort of internation incedent They however get to subsidze everything against thier own laws and NAFTA. Most Canadian's stopped carring about the US a while back. Now they are after OUR Norh West Passage, and OUR water. They could ask nicely, but I don't think the nesesary words are in thier vocabulary.

Once again you demonstrate how little you know about the world.

The EU is primarily an economic union. It exists to create and perpetuate a common market. It has no capacity to legislate or act in military matters, no army and no ability to declare war.

The relevant organisation, i.e. the most local one with military powers is NATO.

So, yes, let's see what NATO does about this in their backyard.

EDIT: and to others, the USA is an active member of NATO, and the most powerful member, so it is entirely correct that they are taking a position on this matter.

Well it is, but then again it sound really ironical that the USA is calling for end of hostilities.

That's probably true. But I will say this in defence of the USA: they never just pitch up and roll into a country one day without warning. Even after September the 11th, there was a week or so before they identified Osama Bin Laden and Al Qaeda as the perpetrators, then a couple of weeks of international politics before they actually felt that invading Afghanistan was necessary. We all knew Iraq was coming at least a year before it did, and whether you believed the evidence or not, there was a genuine effort to get full UN backing and, though I hate to admit it, the invasion probably actually was legal under existing UN resolutions.

I will play devil's advocate now, but the tension in South Osetia has been growing up there for half a year. Russians have their peace units stationed there and if they were attacked, they have a right to protect them. Anyway I think they are the force there that can ensure peace.

Saakachvili isn't that stupid to go into open confrontation with Russia, it's a thing that cannot be won.

Maybe he could get Frank to persuade the WTO to come and help out?

I'm not all too familiar with the history of the conflict (it's lasted ever since the collapse of USSR and started probably earlier?) but it is the territory of Georgia, and having the army of a foreign country stationed within an independent country protecting/fighting for a separatist movement does not sound quite right (especially considering that Russia has attacked other undisputed parts of Georgia).

Well I'm not interested in that either. What I've heard/read is that Russia had peace units dislocated in South Osetia. Same kind of units like for example KFOR, they were attacked and now it seems Russia returns fire.

Doesn't seem like the Russians care as much about precision guided weapons as we do. Colateral damage isn't much of a concern for them it seems. We might blow up a school full of children, but at least it was the school we wanted to blow up and it was because we thought it was full of terrorist....

My question is: Does Georgia have nuclear capabilities? If so then NATO, Western Europe, US, Someone should step in and diffuse the situation.Other than that it is a local conflict and should be left to the combatants.

The political situation in the province in question is somewhat complicated: they have their own government and are technically vassal states of Russia although they are geographically within Georgia. Both the local population and Russia claim that the region is Russian and most of the people living there are Russian.
The start of the present conflict seems to be Georgia sending in its army to quell the uprising (and to counter-attack for supposed Russian incursions) and Russia responding "to protect its citizens".

Georgia?
I'd be very surprised.

Might not have built them themselves, but it seems to be rather easy these days to get your hands on old Russian hardware. Especially if you were apart of the old USSR, you already likely have a ton of decrepit silos loaded up with rockets and warheads.

Europe should just let them split France. That should take care of the problem.

When Soviet Union fell apart they pull out of there all nuclear hardware, so no old nukes in abandoned silos. But anyway there are rumors about 10 missing suitcase bombs and I've heard that they once caught a man in Ukraine - he went to a pub with a plastic bag containing warhead from SS-20 he wanted to sell, few minutes after the place was crawling with soldiers.

Zombie General Sherman attacks again?

Diffuse them? I think that's a bit overkill, isn't it?

Anyway, some good analyses:
http://joshuatrevino.com/?p=637
http://joshuatrevino.com/?p=638

That wouldn't do it, Georgia is only partly in Europe, the other part is in Asia. Maybe ceding Kashmir to the United Arab Emirates would help?

Gotta love how dumb heads of states do something incredibly stupid and have their asses handed to them.

Why diffuse it? it's their problem, let them handle it.

From what I've gathered of the situation, Georgia attacked an independent state that is mostly Russian, Russia responded to protect what it considers its citizens, and in the chaos an estimated thousands of civilians have been killed (although it sounds like for the most part that was from Georgia's munitions). I think I support Russia on this one (though I would appreciate if they would try to avoid inflicting unnecessary civilian casualties). IMO, it seems NATO and the UN should just let Russia handle it, or better yet, stand up for the Russians and insist that Georgia back down and punish them for it (after all, we trained and supplied them); unless there is some good reason not to.

The problem is: Georgia overthrew a Kremlin backed regime a few years ago. Now Russia is moving beyond Ossetia, will they try to overthrow the lawfully elected Georgian government and install a puppet regime? Does Joanie love Chachi? Stay tuned...

Sort of. Georgia didn't really attack an independent state though, but a Georgian province that more-or-less has its own government (don't ask me how that works, but the region is within the borders of Georgia). I guess that basically means it more or less started out as a civil war. Russia indeed intervened because it considers the inhabitants of that province to be Russian citizens.

They're going to make a point. They'll march to Tbilisi and hand Saakashvili's ass to him, wrapped in his resignation and make sure he will be succeeded by someone who isn't the kind of imbecile Saakashvili turned out to be.

It's not going to be about Russia annexing Georgia, it's useless to them. What is useful, however, is the effect of Medvedev keeping his word (about protecting the russian citizens in south ossetia), and the effect it has on his disputed credibility as a head of state. Also, fueling the flames of the nationalistic frenzy Russia is in right now, which is obviously useful for Putin/Medvedev.

What if Russia does annex Georgia? Who can do anything about it? Georgia's not part of NATO so NATO can't do anything. As TH pointed out, the EU has no military mandate. The US isn't going to do anything. So, goodbye Georgia, hello USSR 2.0.

I know I'm late, but South Ossetia is a sort of independent region within sovereing state Georgia. Sort of Kosovo was like until it declared independence. So Georgia just repeled separatists, who wanted independence, but made a mistake that russian soldiers were killed in the process. Plus Russia count ossetians as russian citizens (hell 90% of them have russian passport).

Even now Russia is a federative state (sort of USA). I wouldn't call them USSR, because they're not socialistic. They are run by oligarchy. That is the only change (except from territory loss) that came after dissolving of USSR.

From what I've been hearing, Georgia first sent troops into Ossetia which Georgia claims are within it's own borders. Ossetia claims that it's actually an independent state, which neither the UN, EU or anyone recognizes. Russia has mobilized is/was fighting the Georgian troops.

Both sides (Georgia & Russia) are claiming the other side started it. I've heard that Georgia has accused Russia of supporting or setting up some kind of political instability in Ossetia. Georgia's also been asking for the USA's help saying that they (Georgia) helped out in Iraq so the US should help them now. Apparently the USA has agreed to fly 2000 Georgian soldiers from abroad back to Georgia in fact...

So let's nuke em' all

Thats a bit heavy handed don't ya think?

Well if they can's setle on some agreement, let god sort them out...

(fine, end of sarcastic american point of view )

All joking aside, I wonder what will come of this situation. We should start some kind of pool using that Allegro Rupee system I remember being talked about

From what I've heard today I predict that within few days combat will stop - at least in Ossetia. Russians are working on establishing a buffer zone. So I expect that South Ossetia will become a demilitarized zone or maybe even independent. I cannot tell about Abchazia.

Maybe they will even overthrow Saakachvili, who seems to be uncomfortable for Russia. Who knows. Either way I think we will know by the end of this week.

I don't think anyone but Russia and Georgia should get involved. It's their fight, let them fight it. If Georgia didn't want a war, they shouldn't have attacked.

So all Russia has to do is give passports to everyone in the world. Then it can take over everything in the name of protecting its passport holders. If this is the case, Georgia should allow them safe passage to Russia if they love Russia so much and do not want to be a part of Georgia.

I think Russia just needs breathing room and after all they are just unifying with long lost citizens of Russia. I bet some of you Euro guys didnt know that you could soon be unifying as well hehe.

Oh shut up Frank. The people Russia is protecting consider themselves to be Russian citizens. They don't want to be a part of Georgia.

There's even historical precedence for breaking off from a parent country. Something about England and thirteen colonies, a little over two hundred years ago. You might have heard of it.

I think Franks got a valid point. If Russia did decide to become expansionist, their military could roll thru Europe, no problem. You Euros spend nothing on defense. It would be comical actually.

But they won't because 'Democracies don't invade other countries' and the good ole USA would bail you out even if they did.

I think there's prevalent NATO doctrine over this plan. Sure the plans were made in the time of DDR but I think they were atctualised. The thing is that our country is a part of NATO and if we were being invaded the NATO should stand behind us. Ergo the central Europe would become a very heated combat zone. If you like to know more read Red Strom Rising, where you can read how it could look like.

What, if you ignore the fact that two countries on the western side of Europe are independent nuclear powers, a further six have nuclear weapons in their borders under the NATO weapons sharing agreement and a country of Russia's size is an incredibly easy target?

EDIT: and obviously you need to watch out for the Swiss army. They look like they're not carrying, but actually they have any of a knife, a corkscrew, a pair of scissors, an implement for removing stones from the feet of horses, a bottle opener or a miniature fork at their near-immediate disposal.

EDIT2: reading this whole thread, is there some sort of confusion amongst the Americans as to who NATO are? The 'A' is for Atlantic, not 'American' — it's the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation. It's an expansion of a Western European treaty organisation formed immediately after WW2 to include members from North America. It's subsequently expanded east to include a whole bunch of countries that are nowhere near the North Atlantic, I think as far east as Turkey, which technically means that it spans three continents since Turkey, like Russia, is Eurasian. The main point of NATO is its mutual defence agreement.

So, if Russia attacks any NATO state then it immediately becomes at war with all of them. Not just the eight countries with nuclear weapons in Europe, but also the wealthy North Americans. It would instantly be at war with a total population an order of magnitude larger than its own, with a much greater arsenal, many times as much wealth and many more friends in the rest of the world. And all that with a decreasing population in both absolute and relative terms.

If you're going to make up imaginary land grab situations involving Russia then I would have thought that some attempt to charge south into Asia (that continent where most of Russia's land actually lies) would be more likely. Tactfully avoiding China, of course.

Russia talks a big game, but it's hardly a superpower. It's a slowly decaying nation that doesn't know what it wants to be politically and is running scared from extreme poverty and irrelevance into the comforting blanket of nationalism and whatever reassurance comes from still having just enough tanks lying around to occasionally go to war with absolutely tiny neighbours.

You can't really include nuclear weapons in your defense strategy. Essentially if somebody starts shooting them, everyone will likely start shooting them and mankind will likely be destroyed. Everybody has them to deter everybody else from using them.

The only deterrent for nuclear war is mutually assured destruction. Assuring that should one country launch, the others will causing full scale destruction. Whats the point of winning with nuclear arms if it decimates the entire planet, or at least the areas you now controll?

edit: which is what you said but basically that IS the defence strategy.

There are two types of nuclear weapons - tactical and strategical. Tactical shall to be used on the battlefield. Strategic ones are those in underground silos pointing at major cities and strategical targets.

Sadly enough if you use tactical ones, nobody will ensure that strategical ones won't be used.

Oh you sick sexist bastard!

Things have changed. Do you recall reading discussions of US removing bases from Europe and/or moving bases from 'old Europe' Germany to 'new Europe' Poland or Czech Rep?

Back in the 80's (when Red Storm Rising was written) the US had 4 combat divisions stationed in Germany: 1st, 2nd, 3rd Armored, and 1st Infantry plus some Brigade Combat teams (11th ACR) That was something like 200,000 troops.

Today? Something like two brigades, or about 10,000 troops.

So if you think the US is ready with a Cold War response to Russian aggression, you're mistaken.

But I think Thomas H. makes a good point, Russia isn't a real threat. But Sweden....

That is why I said it could look like. Sure, the times have changed and situation today is quite different. But then again, if that would hypothetically gonna happen, Europe would change into modern battlefield.

Come and try if you think you're hard enough. But you do know the NI problem is largely solved don't you?

As for USA intervening, I don't think Georgia are a big enough oil producer for that much support.

Iran wasn't a problem for the Americans. There were no WMDs, and a letter that they used as proof of links from Iraq to alqueda and whats his face was FORGED by the nsa. It was also an obvious forgery (not only was the main point of it convenient, a couple other convenient bits of false info were included), yet people chose to believe it. If they'll go into Iraq for no real reason, they could easily go into the UK.

And before you claim it was all for the oil, the US is getting NONE of it. It hasn't helped lower the price of oil, or get more into the market, all its done is help raise the price of oil . And isn't getting paid back for any of the billions its already spent on the war and rebuild, and given as cash to people. Iraq however has an 80billion budget surplus this year and the PM was giving cash away on the streets at one point. What was the point of the exercise again?

You want us to come and burn you capital down again?

How so? It's still part of the UK, isn't it?
Yes, I know it's been very stable for the past few years. However, I heard a couple of weeks ago (on the Irish news, I think) that tensions have started to rise again and are higher than they have been in a while. I don't know, personally I don't see things going wrong anytime soon either.

Given we split up northern ireland so the protestants (i.e. british loving side of things) would have the majority, there'll never be complete peace.

As for beating us, I put it 3-1 to England with the loss only due to a minor fire in the capital (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Dutch_Wars)

London's probably due another burning; they lifted the 1666 ban on thatched roofs in London in 1994, I'm sure they're asking for trouble.

Err...

Draw.
Dutch 0.5 English 0.5

Dutch 1.5 English 0.5

Dutch 2.5 English 0.5

We'll chalk that one up as a draw too, since although you ended up with a Dutchman on the throne, the bastard wanted to move his entire power base over to England when he became king there.

Just how did you manage to make that 3-1 for England?

Technically, when William of Orange came over here there was no Parliament to recognise him as King, and no King to convene a new Parliament. So Parliament just convened themselves, which they can't actually do, making them technically illegitimate. Then they recognised William, but being an illegitimate Parliament, that act was illegitimate too.

So, if they were really strict and petty about it, William was never recognised as King and there have been no legitimate parliaments since 1688. Luckily there is no written constitution, so as long as everyone acts reasonably it usually ends okay. And the whole 1688 ordeal gave rise to the Bill of Rights, which properly established Parliament's freedom from the monarch for the first time and included a few of the good bits of the later international stuff (no taxation without representation, freedom from cruel and unusual punishment, something like a prototype for the ECHR Article 6 right to a trial), albeit it a much more verbose way.

Anyway, I did a quick computer simulation using the default player names of what might happen if Russia went up against NATO (ummm, with me in charge). I discovered that it would end like this:

http://www.allegro.cc/files/attachment/596131

EDIT:

Nato on paper looks pretty good doesnt it.
There were treaties in place to keep germany from taking territory before WWII and you know what, they were ignored by both sides.
Just let Russia have some breathing room thats all that they ask!

I doubt Europe has the balls to use a nuke. I think if they were nuked they would just suck it up because it would not be worth it to damage the environment any further with a retaliation. I heard it would speed up global warming too so in the name of the planet Europe would cave. England would be the one exception of course.

Dont worry after the USA finishes up in Iraq the USA will issue a mild demand for Russia to free Europe.

BTW I read that part of this is due to oil competition. Some new oil pipe line that was going to compete with russia. An attempt was made to bomb this pipe line, when it is far from any combat zones.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan_pipeline

Interesting, kind of like how the Oil-For-Food corruption, which the Western media didn't report on, motivated Chirac and Putin to lobby against invading Iraq. And you all thought they had the moral high ground? Hardly...

Ah, the War Nerd finally weighs in: http://exiledonline.com/war-nerd-south-ossetia-the-war-of-my-dreams/

@gnolam: Who gave these amateurs guns? They're just blindly spraying over what looks like sandbags, literally swaying the gun back and forth as they squeeze the trigger, as if they have no clue where the enemy is and aren't even interested... It only works to keep heads down if bullets are coming towards those heads. And if only 3 shots are being sprayed in that general direction from a few hundred yards away, odds are they can advance without getting hit. Now I've never been to war myself, but that just looks stupid... Nevermind the fact that they're also standing above the sandbags as if they have no need for cover... So what the fuck are they shooting at? Hopes and dreams?

So Georgia beats Russia! ...in beach volleyball. And the Georgian players live in Brazil. Wait, am I in the wrong thread again? D'oh!

"Mission Accomplished" was declared in 2003, so I guess the USA are long since finished in Iraq? You know, unless the information they've been feeding us has mostly been for political ends.

Also, you underestimate Europe and NATO (see, e.g. the coordinated response to September the 11th — an attack on one member state which meant that all other member states became involved — which goes much deeper than the war in Afghanistan), and as a result overestimate the relative 'strength' of England (which has been part of Great Britain for about 300 years, and the United Kingdom for 200, and hasn't acted unilaterally in war since).

Wag the dog? Maybe this was created to distract everyone from the real issue, John Edwards' affair.

I already told you the oil link, so therefore we know there is a link with John Edwards. Have you seen the amount of oil he puts in his hair?

The Iraq war did end in 2003 but keeping the peace continues.

A misnomer. It's "The Iraq invasion".

I find it disturbing that the USA under Bush invaded Iraq, which was a sovereign country. Now he demands that Russia should respect the sovereignty of Georgia.

Nice liberal talking point yea got there.

Iraq was warned for more than a year about what was brewing.
Iraq broke many UN mandates and sactions.
The USA ended up going into Iraq thus providing the backbone to enfore UN-rules.

This is a bit different from Russia invading Georgia without warning and of course without UN backing.

You should be ashamed of your ignorance.

I fear that orwellian nightmare came true. As far as I remember UN didn't back the Iraqi invasion. I remeber they were against it and so was the rest of the world.

Moreover Georgians attacked and killed russian soldiers.

Russia is fighting to keep it's own state. Iraq does not belong to the USA, much as their government would like it to be.

The USA invaded Iraq on a lie - the pretense of WMDs. The leaders of some of the USA's traditional allies strongly opposed the invasion, saying that invading Iraq was not justified in the context of UNMOVIC's February 12, 2003 report. But then, it's likely that US government's english leads to a different interpretation of that report.

Russia does not own South Ossetia. They are occupying a foreign state.

As far as the US + Iraq situation goes, until the Iraqi government stabilizes and learns how to deal with the terrorism going on there, the US can't leave without Iraq plunging into a civil war.

Wikipedia already has an article on the conflict over South Ossetia :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war

It sounds like East and West Germany all over again.

You guys are fucking stupid. You are completely ignorant of the facts, or willfully refuse to accept there are things you don't understand. Simply reading wikipedia about any of this stuff will prove you are wrong, or only presenting a small fraction of the actual history.

I propose a test. From now on, before posting about international affairs, you must first prove you are not a fucking dumb shit moron loser.

Sorry, I got that wrong. It's more like Russia is protecting South Ossettia. Thanks for constructively pointing this out - like the mature adults we are - and correcting my post, nonnus. And if your excuse is one of frustration, the answer is grow up.

BTW, I took your advice to get the following quotes:

Now, being a dumb arse, I guess I'd better just butt out of this thread from now on. Ta-ta

I'm not reading wikipedia about this. I use our not-so-biased media. And I remember damn rigt that in the first days the UN was strongly against invasion to the Iraq.

What is more I'm not advocating what's happening in the South Ossetia. I'm just saying that if the USA "has" the right to invade a foreing country, they shouldn't be the ones, who throw a first stone at Russia for doing so. That is just an act of plain hypocrisy.

And last, but not least - ossetians consider themselves as russians, they have russian passports, they had russian "peace force" stationed in their region. So when georgians came killing "russian" people and soldiers, the natural reaction was to protect them. Period.

Right, it's as wrong as USA invading Iraq or Afghanistan, but then again it's not like USA can do anything in this world and others are forbidden to do the same.

The UN is a farce. They can't even be bothered to stop what is going on in Sudan. The Nations United for just what exactly? Do you think people like Saddam should be left in power to gas large groups of ethnic minorities? Were the Taliban stationed in Afghanistan or weren't they? So enough of this the USA are a bunch of hypocrites blah blah BS. We're the ones who save everyone else's ass. You think we like having to clean up everyone else's mess?

Well I know that anything that UN does are resolution and no actions. Sure somebody should clean a mess. But a) should have a mandate to do it, b) shouldn't say they had it if it ain't true.

On the other hand Saddam was holding situation there pretty tigth - no problems with Kurdi, no civil war. Do you even know some reasons why the first Gulf War ended shortly after freeing Kuvait?

Who asked you? In Afghanistan you cleared your own mess - you were the ones who gave them weapons to fight russians in the eighties.

Well, in Slovenia, there are Austrian, Hungarian and Italian minorities. The Hungarian minorities are concentrated in the southern part. I guess they have Hungarian passports, they also consider themselves Hungarian. Now, because they are concentrated in one region, they decided to liberate that region and make it Hungarian. Of course, Slovenia is un-dividable, and the army would have to act. Now, because of that, Hungary would attack us and start a war, protecting "their" citizens.

Now, imagine the same happening in the Czech republic. Sounds logical? If no, then stop using that argument you just used.

P.S.
I doubt this is necessary, but just in case: No, the scenario I described is not true, it never was, never will be.

The UN decided not to pass a new resolution declaring war.

However, Resolution 1441 held that Iraq was in material breach of Resolution 687, which was the ceasefire resolution following the 1990/91 Gulf War. Resolution 678 had authorised force against Iraq upon its failure to withdraw troops from Kuwait.

The US argument was, therefore, that 678 made war with Iraq legal. 687 set the terms on which it ceased to be legal, but required the Iraqi state to act in a certain way. 1441 held that Iraq wasn't acting in that way. Therefore 687 was no longer in force. However, 678 was.

There's some debate as to what 678 (and the others close to it) actually authorise force for, but the US and UK had been interpretting them pretty widely since 1991 — it wasn't a sudden Bush (Jnr) about face.

[disclaimer: my five-year memory isn't that good, I've looked up all the resolution numbers just now, please forgive me if I got any wrong]

And that's all the UN does is talk. They have the authority to send UN peacekeeping troops where they deem it necessary, but apparently Sudan's not a high enough priority to do enough to actually put an end to the violence.

Well sure, you put a large enough part of the population to death and they'll stop causing problems for you out of fear.

Because Kuwait was liberated? I don't know what you're really asking me.

The 80's? You mean the Reagan years. I don't vote for Republicans.

Oh well if 10+ year resolution can authorise a war, maybe Germany should look up if the treaty of Versailles is still valid...

Vanneto: the situation out there is more complicated and basically it's a russian own problem they have to resolve after decades of overlooking it. In the past Stalin drew the borders in a way that Ossetia was cut in the half into south and north Ossetia. It was a sovereign contry which was absorbed into Soviet Union. After it fell apart Georgia was left as sovereign country and North Ossetia as a part of Russian federation.

And if somebody would like it to legalise, and if it's possible to use a decade old resolutions to rationalize government overthrow, then we can remember and blame your president Wilson, who wrote something along the lines that every nation has a right to have it's own state.

EDIT:

I highly doubt those US soldiers that were shot down from the skies by Stinger voted them either. But it was your (american) mess.

The original plan was to take down Saddam after Kuwait is liberated - why on Earth would the allied units cross the Iraqi border? However shortly after the army began it's run for Baghdad and order from high places came to withdraw. Somebody up there recognised that Saddam is important to keep the region stable.

So US gov. screwed Kurdis who were helping allies by making an uprising. All that because there won't be a civil war if Saddam is w/o power and the Iran won't take the opportunity.

Ok, so when are you invading Israel?

No, but let's be clear about one thing: you didn't invade Iraq to liberate the Iraqi people from a horrible dictator (who originally came to power with US support back when the USSR was the enemy, but let's not go there).

Since everyone knew they took control of the country in the late 1990, that's a bit of a silly question, don't you think?

It's nothing personal and we're all friends ans allies. That does not mean that you do not criticise one another. If one of your friends does something that you think is wrong, you tell them. And the US can be pretty hypocritical in their foreign affairs.

To be fair, the US and UK had policed no-fly zones in Iraq for the decade inbetween, and the entire UN had been involved in weapons inspection, etc. So the whole saga didn't really end and then begin again.

Don't misunderstand me though: I'm just explaining why I understand the invasion to have been legal. I don't mean to make any comment on whether it was moral and/or justified and/or appropriate. But bodies like the UN are really legal bodies; nations don't sign up to them because they agree to a common morality.

I understand that. I'm just being sarcastic about the fact that 10+ years old resolution can justify and legalise a war.

Honestly, a large percentage of one of Canada's provinces, Quebec, wants to separate and I think it's bullshit. I personally wouldn't want to let them. They're not really "French". No more than I'm "English"... They're Canadian! The only real ties they have to France anymore is the language they speak, and as I've heard they sort of butcher it anyway. IMO, Canada should just switch to English as the "official" language nation-wide. I have no problem allowing them to learn French, which has its uses, but I think the nation would be more unified if everybody spoke the same language. As it is, you get "Quebecuers" and other Canadians or Americans in an online game on the mic and it doesn't take long for people to be telling them to STFU or speak English and making homosexual jokes. Not only can we not understand them, but their accents are SO fucking annoying. I'll take a deep deep American South accent any day over that of a Quebecuer. And some of my family is French from both sides... I don't care. It's still annoying.

I honestly don't know why they want to separate, but it sounds like they're just being stupid to me.

You all tell them to STFU all the time but you don't have a clue why they want to seperate?!

And Frank: stop spreading liberal propaganda!!

It was a rhetorical question in response to OICW's comment. Saying that invading Afganistan to stop the Taliban was unjustified is like saying no one has a right to kill bus bombers.

And no, I don't condone all the weapon peddling that goes on. As OICW said, it was a problem of our past government that helped bring them to power.

Yep they were. In fact Taliban wasn't the primary target of operation Enduring Freedom, it were the terrorist camps that they were harboring. Taliban overthrow was just a cherry on top of a cake.

The main problem there was that the soviet invasion was followed by civil war. During that time Al-Qaida established their training camps there. Talian took over and let Al-Qaida in Afghanistan. After 11. 9. 2001 USA gave their government ultimatum: "give us the organisators". They didn't and so the invasion followed.

In retrospective I must agree that it was a step in the right direction, because the regime was really oppresive. However I'm not sure if Iraq was right as well.

Edited spelling.

It's "Al-Qaida". HTH, HAND... This thread has derailed from an interesting subject to a very old and pointless one (that has been done to death already). A shame :/

Hmm...

One or two reasons do spring to mind if your attitude is anything to go by...

Maybe they feel they're Quebecian (?) first and Canadian second?

The reason for this war is people like Bamccaig... Well, not really. It's about Russian penis waving... but anyway.

I think Russia and Georgia should both abolish whatever 'claim' they feel they have over South Ossetia and let them form their own independent country/state. They'd probably all get along better that way.

Nah, if we let all bullshitters have their countries, soon, the world will consist entirely of a million small countries. We must destroy separatists.

I saw a video of a "live" reporter get shot by a Russian sniper. Typical liberal commies ... trying to take out the free press! Ron Paul warned of Russia attacking Georgia a few years ago. If I remember correctly, it was when USA was contemplating a "preemptive" strike against Iraq.

The way I see it, let them nuke each other out. Stop trading with Russia, take away their Olympic medals, and the nation will slowly starve away.

http://www.breitbart.tv/html/151953.html

It was the Georgians. If we all stopped trading with Russia then Europe would suffer more than Russia would. It relies on Russia for most of its energy.

Russia was right to do what it did despite what our News media says but I think they should only "annex" the breakaway regions and not the entire country. In my opinion this is no different than what happened in Kosovo. If Georgia wanted to gain control it should have waited 40 years while telling all of the Georgians living in Ossetia and elsewhere to migrate there and have 8 children per mother and then gain control it though democracy.

I assume most eastern european countries will now join NATO to orevent themselves from being gobbled up.

I find it amazing how people love to defend Russia when they are clearly in the wrong. Saying the georgia situation is the same as the Iraq is just plain ignorant. There are a few simularities but not much else. Everyone with a brain knows that the USA does not want to annex any countries.

Its about time some of you end your america envy and do whats best for the world instead. America is far from perfect but it is about as good as it gets. If the USA loses its #1 spot in the world how many people honestly think the world will be a better place when that happens? What if Russia was the top dog. I bet most of you would be speaking Russian by now.

You guys need to read the book "useful idiots". It was what Lenin called liberals. Lenin could always count on his useful liberal idiots to defend his actions or make excuses for Russia.

Something Stephen Colbert said recently seems appropriate: Reality has a well-known liberal bias.

That sounds xenophobic. Did you know the Cold War ended, and that communists are not your enemy?

I wonder if you always think US is right, or that they always take the best option for the world even if that contradicts what is better for themselves If they can't, they aren't as good world leaders as anyone else.

By the way, did Tom Clancy predict the war in a video game?

Sure, they are only exporting "democracy" to those countries. And they will be so happy about that, that they will become best friends with USA. And USA in exchange will tie them economically.

Chinesee if you want to be pesimistic. And no, nothing important would happen. The top dog would be doing the same as you now do - spreading "democracy" and "freedom". I wonder if you know that imposed "good" is actualy evil.

I'd take our "democracy" and "freedom" over dictatorship and communism any day.

Or maybe you don't like free speech or the right to have a say in electing your own rulers?

In the US right now, there isn't a heck of a lot of difference.

Whoa.

I haven't been following this, but...

Has anybody seen this?

And this?

What's going on? Is there some context I'm missing, or is it really what it looks like?

I think they roughed you up too much at the border crossing. Sorry about that. Seriously, there's a big difference.

No one tells me who to vote for, locally or nationally either. No one fixes our votes as far as I know. It sucks pretty bad when the voting idiots outweigh the voting sane, but enough people manage to change back over to the other side once they see the way the country goes while they're in office. It's a lot better than having no choice at all like in North Korea or fixed elections somewhere else.

Actually, both countries (Russia and Georgia) are in the wrong. Georgia tried to invade South Osetia, Russia responded with an invasion of their own.

This war is actually about resources, like all the other wars. The area of Caucasus has tremendously big resources of natural gas and oil, and America wants to secure the paths to those resources.

It's also a good opportunity to expand NATO and sell more weapons and related stuff, and get new customers.

In the end, a global thermonuclear and biological war is unavoidable. It's written in almost every sci-fi works for the 21st century. Star Trek also has WWIII with hundreds of millions of victims.

I had thought it was in the billions. Got about 8 now, and a "mutually assured destruction" outcome would seriously decimate the current population.

That doesn't make it inevitable...

If you decimate a population that runs in the billions you get hundreds of millions of victims.

No, but theres a very good chance that human nature does.

Sure, but that's a rather inaccurate number

To me decimate says take a large portion, maybe 7/8ths, and make them disappear. "hundreds of millions" doesn't really do "7 billion" justice.

I don't think so. Not saying it can't happen, but I don't think it's inevitable.
What is clear though: the Earth cannot sustain the large human population we have now indefinitely.

To decimate a population means to remove every tenth of that population. I know it's acquired the more loose meaning of "a lot", but I think it's odd to say "decimate" when you mean "a large (>>10%) fraction is removed."

Thats just one of my reasons for what I believe. What happens when more places run out of drinkable water, farmable land and decent temperatures? Some will move, others will take. And both will cause friction.

So I should have chosen a better word

When America hosted the World Cup, it went really well.

Can we book America for the next World War? We had the last 2 here in Europe and the carpets are still dirty.

How about your home town Frank? Do you have the balls for that?

Hmm... This reminds me of what happened in the 'water fight'...

'Little country' splashes 'Big country' with red fizzy drink... 'Big country' get angry!

{"name":"8adc513453c957eda8d8c987903a9a2a.jpg","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/a\/8adc513453c957eda8d8c987903a9a2a.jpg","w":468,"h":891,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/8\/a\/8adc513453c957eda8d8c987903a9a2a"}

Don't fuck with the country with the thermonuclear warheads... Or the hulk in this case...

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/reports/jerryp/empire.html

This conversation is showing me how little some of you guys know about world history.

You think the current problems in the world are big right now? Tens of millions left to starve to death, millions marched into ovens for easy burial. All of this happened on the European continent and was started by people on that continent. This makes me assume that these same people will again forget the past and repeat the process. This time Europe is lucky that the USA is being more proactive by trying to halt a repeat of the same old process. Will this work, I do not know but I do think there is a better chance for you guys to survive this time with the USA looking out for yea. We do have a reason to stick our nose into europes affairs since our boys lost their lives in two world wars started over there.

The people that make up the USA are no better than anywhere else in the world but the culture and form of government is what sets us apart.

The next war will be in Europe I'm afraid since Europe continues to lapse into complacency, thinking the human condition is somehow different from 60 years ago is foolish.

Georgia was taking care of a problem area within it's own borders and Russia's borders. Russia was in the wrong but I see you are becoming a useful idiot.

Mind explaining how? They broke off from Russia, and the people of South Ossettia didn't want any part of it; they were still loyal to Russia and considered themselves citizens of it. Georgia gave them no choice, though. So since they wern't loyal to Georgia, what did the Georgians do? First, cut off their water supply. Then rush their city and kill hundreds of civilians. Russia came in and saved the day. Even now they (Georgians) continue to kill, or at least attempt to kill, civilians. I'm sure you've seen the several videos of them shooting at reporters. I do not see why Russia is the bad guy here. You should be happy they saved several Americans, at the very least.

Either way, I do not think America should get involved. If anything, we should be supporting Russia, though. And kick Georgia out of our super secret club.

South Osetia is not even a country, Georgia is. When the Russians attacked S. Osetia, they attacked Georgia. Not cool. S. Osetia does not exist.

You're right. I shouldn't have said that it was a country. Especially considering that I never said, nor implied, that. I still fail to see how that makes it OK to kill civilians or another nation.

My comment wasn't directed at you. Just something I wanted to point out.

I fail to see how wars are OK in general. Even without killing civilians. Its human nature, I guess.

Damn! That means next one is Mexico being invaded by the US. Which is not that crazy at all taking into account that we have two presidents at once right now and a very angry people because last elections.

With Elverion's logic it would be ok for Russia to invade california to save it from the oppressive Bush regime. South O is part of Georgia. Russia is the outsider. I read that the Russian troops were massed on the border just waiting for the slightest excuse to charge on in.

Is it? Then why do the people that live there think they are Russian citizens?

"Is it? Then why do the people that live there think they are Russian citizens?"

In your case I will call it ignorance. In there case I will call it stupidity. The Russians do not even declare this area Russian territory. The simply said many in the area have Russian passports. Even if all of them were Russian citizens the land belongs to Georgia not Russia.

You must be a popular Democrat in your area. You should run for office since you can speak the things you say with a straight face, much like BO does.

So you are right, and the people that LIVE THERE are wrong? You're an idiot Frank.

Do some reading Frank, the people in South Ossetia have wanted to break away from Georgia for a while now. I say let them secede and be done with the bickering.

I think my dad summarized it nicely.

I apologize then. Seeing as you did not quote somebody, and your post was right after mine, I was lead to believe you were putting words in my mouth.

Except that California isn't wanting to break away from the US and join Russia but being forced to stay, is not full of Russian citizens, and is not being slaughtered for no reason, then yes. Not exactly the best analogy now that you think about it, huh?

I don't think the war in Georgia is such a big issue. Has anyone seen this lately? I mean, wow, now thats harsh. I hope we don't have another cold war ahead... Or worse, a hot war.

Firstly, where do you get those numbers? There was no more than 50000-70000 people* there, the two major ethnic groups were Ossetian and Georgian, with a handful of Russians.

Are you also taking into account that the so-called South-Ossetian government appears to consist of ex-KGB/FSB agents, with the chief income from weapons and drugs smuggling - under the protection of Russian "peace-keepers", in return creating disturbances and continuing to destabilize the region.

It is hard to say anything about this particular assault (well it may have been a bit too heavy-handed) but you seem to be ignoring that the South-Ossetian "peace-keeping" units who had been firing at Georgian villages for some time operated under the protection of the Russian army.

I wonder how many believe that there were 1500-2000 (civilian?) casulties in Tshvinvali. It appears that the numbers might be closer to 20-60. Taking also into account that there were lots of armed people, it gets harder and harder to call it going after the civilian population.

Well they did. They also don't show signs of pulling out, despite peace being signed, and they also seem to be unable/unwilling to control the territories they "liberated" (news of looting, attacks on journalists).

Soviet citizens???

---------------------

• Apparently South-Ossetian leader might have been inflating the number of Russian citizen. As the territory was financed by Moscow (pensions etc), it may have been in his interest to report more people, to steal the excess money.

Another thing is that Russian passport holders are required to have an official place of living. As it appears that Russia can't register people to live in foreign countries, most of these people are "officially" living in North-Ossetia and other parts of Russia. Which does sort of raise the question, WTF was this mass of people doing in a place where they weren't supposed to be in the first place?

Our school is planning a trip to St Petersburg in October. Pupils' age 14 - 15. One of the teachers said it's questionable to travel to a country in war. I kind of agreed.

Frank is right.

1) who drew the map and established the territorial boundaries of Georgia?
2) when the soviet union dissolved who maintained those boundaries?
3) who agreed in treaty and deed that the former soviet republics are soveriegn nations?
4) what actions precipitated this event?
5) who by inaction allowed this to occur?

Since you people refuse to educate your selves and prefer ignorance and whatever mass media feeds your lazy minds I will tell you:

1) Joseph Stalin (who was from Gori) established the current territorial boundaries of present day Georgia in the 1930's. South Ossetia has been in Georgia since.

2) Boris Yeltsin allowed the former republics to retain their geographic boundaries when the USSR dissolved.

3) Russia allowed this and has recognized the soveriegnity of the various former soviet states in numerous treaties and UN resolutions.

4) NATO gave Kosovo independance over STRONG Russian protests. The Russians were pissed. NATO refused to allow Georgia and Ukraine to begin the process of joining NATO for fear it would anger the Russians.

5) The EU and NATO

The former soviet republics are scared as hell. Poland, how are you feeling right now? Would you like to see Russia expand into Belarus and Ukrain again?

EU how are you feeling? All your imported energy comes from Russia, the only part that doesn't come thru Russia is the oil and gas that comes thru Georgia.

So you see it's not a US vs Russia problem. All you EU cowards are going to appease yourselves into another continental war, and then it will be our problem.

Thanks in advance.

You realize that Canada isn't in the EU right?

"Do some reading Frank, the people in South Ossetia have wanted to break away from Georgia for a while now. I say let them secede and be done with the bickering."

That is a matter for Georgians to work out, not the USA or Russia. You are the one that needs to do some reading on how the concept of countries and boundaries work.

"I think my dad summarized it nicely."

It sounds like your dad really loves the NBC news channel. I have seen this crazy tilt in logic from the lefty sites. A little of most of what your dad said is true but it is mostly ignoring the other side of the story (the Georgian side).

"One of the teachers said it's questionable to travel to a country in war."

People still visit the USA and it is at war.

"Except that California isn't wanting to break away from the US and join Russia but being forced to stay, is not full of Russian citizens, and is not being slaughtered for no reason, then yes. Not exactly the best analogy now that you think about it, huh?"

You are missing out on the joke. I was making fun of you. I was not trying to make a good analogy. I was trying to use logic that was even more warped than yours. I admit it is a difficult job to do.

"You realize that Canada isn't in the EU right?"

Birds of a feather fly together. Basically Canadians like you are European co-dependants.

In the year 2060 the states in the Southwestern US succeeded because they were overwhelmingly Hispanic and called this new nation Aztlan. There were some people who wanted to remain in the US but couldn't sell their homes that their families had lived in for hundreds of years to anyone and wouldn't have the money to relocated in the US so they refuse to be governed by Aztlan. Meanwhile Russia puts its military in Cuba, Venezuela, Mexico, and Guatemala; it is also in talks with Canada to put some if its military there also. Russia also arms and trains the army of Aztlan. One day the army of Aztlan wants to put these autonomous regions of people who wanted to remain apart of the US under their control so it goes in and starts bombing, raping, and killing thousands of innocent people. What do you think the USA would do, just stand by and let this happen?

Wow frank, where do you get this stuff? You have to be joking. theres no way anyone could be serious about the stuff you say. Especially if you actually read what others have said to you.

I mean seriously, you haven't even managed to pick up the forum mockup, even when it was directly pointed out to you, so we KNOW you don't bother reading what people say. You have ALL the ear marks of a professional forum troll.

Please feel free to prove me wrong. but you'd actually have to start proving the wild and outlandish claims you make, and stop insulting people all the time

I agree with Frank that Russia did something wrong by invading an area that is not their territory and is technically Georgia. But I disagree in two concepts:

• Georgia itself separated from Russia. One would think they would be more comprehensive with regions wanting to separate.

• When Colombia invaded Ecuador and killed several Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia fighters, United States supported the action citing security reasons. Now they reject it citing Georgia sovereignty. What happened to Ecuador sovereignty?

Few posts above I've written that imposed "good" is actually evil. Basically what you did in Iraq was bringing your type of democracy into a country with different cultural background and habits. By the way your "democracy" (I would say mediocracy) is nice example of paradox - theorethicaly it shouldn't work, but it works (I have this from a guy who study law).

Or maybe you don't know the world history.

Don't forget that large portion of your "nation" are former Europeans. Many of them low-classes, who wanted to start a new life. And your history began in 17th century.

Oh yes, if your person is anything to go by...

nonnus:
Basically Russia was solving old mistakes that predecessors of today's ruling oligarchy made in the past.

Can I have American citizenship now?

Double standards. It's ok for Kossovo to be independent, but it's not ok for Osettia to be independent.

OICWRETARDO said "By the way your "democracy" (I would say mediocracy) is nice example of paradox - theorethicaly it shouldn't work, but it works (I have this from a guy who study law)."

Does this guy currently wash cars too? Saying capitalism should not work is goofy. It should work and does. The only amazing thing about it is how well it works. Thats the part that the elite have a problem with. How could such a simple system that lets beggars have a say, work better than their elaborate command and control economy headed up by a snooty leader.

OICWRETARDO said "Don't forget that large portion of your "nation" are former Europeans. Many of them low-classes, who wanted to start a new life. And your history began in 17th century."

Like I said before the USA has a different culture and government. Both of these changed when the USA was formed. I guess this is another example of a system run by the poor and low-classes being better than the elite top down socialist models.

"What do you think the USA would do, just stand by and let this happen?"

OICWRETARDO said "Oh yes, if your person is anything to go by..."

I would be a good example to go by, good of you to notice. After coming from a poor background, I was able to exert a moderate amount of effort and now I have most everything I ever wanted. Its the American dream you might say.

OICWRETARDO said "Or maybe you don't know the world history."

Or maybe you dont know much in general and specifically in the area of history.

If there are US citizens in a troubled country we usually evacuate them from the hot zone.

Supporting another countries actions is way different from driving tanks and ground forces in. Personally I would like the USA to stay out of all these situations. The only problem is that we learn from the past and that shows that the USA needs to guide the more troubled nations a bit.

"Double standards. It's ok for Kossovo to be independent, but it's not ok for Osettia to be independent."

I do not know the particulars on Kossovo but wasnt that a UN deal again and not one nation just invading another.

"we KNOW you don't bother reading what people say. You have ALL the ear marks of a professional forum troll."

I figured I would address this last since it does not add anything to the thread. Poor poor Thomas Fjellstrom resorting to all insults with absolutely nothing of value to add to the discussion. This is one of the greatest hallmarks of an individual losing a debate. I am waiting for you to tell everyone how funny I smell next. I bet your not going to be my friend anymore. Also saying I dont bother to read what people say is probably the most foolish thing your have ever said. I accept your defeat in this particular debate however.

I think Frank should be silenced until he figures out how to use BBCode. He's been a member for over 2 years, ffs.

I can't believe to say it, but I agree with you.

Who the fuck is OICWRETARDO?

That is the question over which I was scratching my head for the last five minutes.

Oh, I see! Retardo! (?)

Calling names now. That is something AOL boys do often

Maybe Frank is one of Piccolos accounts, used to gage our reaction to stupidity for his experiments?

I doubt Piccolo's keyboard has the Shift key

Frank Griffin ain't Piccolo. Piccolo's out in space testing his perpetual energy space ship. And they don't have the innernet out there yet.

I think .luna is a better TLD than .moon

My balls are swollen, I think I'll nuke Russia.

That's a nice metaphore for firing a load...

No, it's not about one nation invading another, it's about one nation being given independence (Kossovo) while another is not (Osettia).

You mean to say.

Yes, it's not about one nation invading another, it's about one nation being given independence (Kossovo) while another is not (Osettia).

Was the Kossovo decision made by the UN or the USA? I assume it was the UN's desire to split them up. What does this have to do with a single country invading another if the Kossovo thing was a UN action? This could eventually reach the point of going to the UN but it has not happened yet so they are different situations at the moment.

Not much has been happening in Georgia the past few days.
Could this be the calm before the storm?

"OICWRETARDO" is what OICW wanted, so I gave it to him.

So Russia's argument is that they want to 'liberate their citizens?'. Isn't that the age old tactic for annexing countries a la pre world war 2 times? Didn't Russia just dump truckloads of passports into Ossetia a while ago?

Didn't Mevdev also say that if anyone got in Russia's way they would be crushed?

Samuel: I think it's over. In my opinion it's now pointless to debate who was right and who was wrong. Now we should think about what to do to prevent this from happening. And I must say that I'm kinda worried about the step NATO took - they cut down communication with Russians till they pull out (I'm glad they're too afraid to cut it down permanently).

Strong words from the Russians.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D92M5GM81&show_article=1

The Russians threaten to do something beyond the use of diplomacy.
This would be a good time for Europe to finally show a back bone.
The situation is getting more serious now and by showing fear aka Europe, it only results in more aggressive actions from Russia since they feel they can get away with it. The USA can threaten back but everyone knows we are currently busy with other matters. Its time to push Europe out of its nest and see if they splat on the ground or can finally fly. I assume there will be a splatting sound.

"I think it's over. In my opinion it's now pointless to debate who was right and who was wrong. Now we should think about what to do to prevent this from happening"

We need to determine who is right and who is wrong in order to prevent this in the future. Criminal defense lawers would love to have a person of such moral relativism in their jury. Saying its now pointless to debate just 1 week after it happened. Jeez

I think Europe should team up with conservative Russia this time because it is obvious that the liberal US is going to lose this time. The US is being controlled by Trotskiest neocons who are spending the US into debt the same way the USSR did when it collapsed.

OOh my back is stiff

Better nuke Russia again

Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rice. Neocon US expansionists - Goooood
Russia, Europe, Napster - Baaaaad

Forget WHO is right, and concentrate on WHAT is right. All polticians are happy to stir up trouble if it increases their personal/party power and sense of self-importance.

+1

USA did everything they could to make Kossovo an independent state. They pushed real hard. The UN members had no other choice. Essentially, it was a decision of the USA.

If Russians start invading country after country, then yes, I'll say it's ok to be against Russia.

Russia's case is also the same as Turkey's case invading Cyprus. In 1974, Turkey invaded Cyprus because 140,000 Cypriots of Turkish origin were supposedly "oppressed" by 700,000 Cypriots of Greek origin.

Of course, no one cares, and the USA is ok with Turkey, since Turkey is a very important ally of USA.

That's what I mean about double standards.

Saying the USA is losing this one is like saying I lost the super bowl because I was cheering for the team that lost. Georgia is the one that is losing in this situation. If the liberals win in the November elections they it will be possible for the USA to lose in places like Iraq since losing and appeasement is what liberals do best.

Concepts like moral relativism is one of the greatest down falls within Europe. There are times when one side is evil.

I think the USA will probably do just as much as it did in Cyprus concerning Georgia. The USA has no land bases adjacent to Georgia so it would be difficult to do anything.

There is nothing wrong with being selective about which causes to fight for. Its called the facts of life. I would think Europe would do more in a multitude of situations, since many of the problems are happening in there own part of the world.

Europe is not bad, it is frozen in the appeasement mentality. I assume they might be a victim in the not so distant future so I will give my sympathy in advance.

Finally we agree - to be clear nobody wanted world police to take action this time.

I haven't noticed. To be crystal clear (although I think it's futile since others have pointed that out earlier): by Europe you probably mean EU. EU is not USA ergo it's not a federation that shares military. It's just economical union. So only thing they can do about Georgia is talking.

Same goes for UN, they do have military, but they also have really strong tradition of staying out of conflicts (Rwanda somebody?). So all they do is talking. And guess what, Russia has veto right in the Security Council.

NATO on the other hand has the power, and guess what. First you are a part of it. Second nobody wants to intervene with Russia (for obvious reasons, SS-20 are one of them...), especially when Saakashivili showed how bad it is.

Well, then let us tell you what concept of morale do you have in the USA? Is it like this: everything USA does = good, everything other = bad?

That's moral relativism, thank you.

The problem of being selective for Europe is that it selects nothing. There was a good article that talked about european defense (or lack of it). Europe cannot afford to defend itself since it spends so much on its welfare state. If Europe had to defend itself many of their governments could collapse.

I refer to Europe as a single entity even for defense because they are incredibly similar in being all welfare state and very little defense. It would be too specific to say France alone should solve x,y,z problem alone, when there are many other countries in the area that could do their part but do not.

People who are good at losing arguements love to make the always or never statements. The USA is not perfect but it is the best the world has to offer at the moment.

"Finally we agree - to be clear nobody wanted world police to take action this time."

I think Georgia wanted the world police and it is their country so I beg to differ with you on this one.

"That's moral relativism, thank you."

Wrong, it is called limited resources.

Utilitarianism.

Uhm that's subjective and biased point of view. I know lot of people who will laugh their ass at you if you said it straight in the eyes.

Ok we're done. We can also refer to USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Panama and south american states as America - as one entity.

"Uhm that's subjective and biased point of view. I know lot of people who will laugh their ass at you if you said it straight in the eyes."

The proof is in the pudding as they say. I was wondering where those insane laughing people were.

"Ok we're done. We can also refer to USA, Canada, Mexico, Cuba, Panama and south American states as America - as one entity."

You mean you are done. Canada, cuba and parts of south america would fit in more with Europe since they are well fare states as well. Anyways you miss my point. Namby pamby well fare states can barely take care of themselves let alone anything outside their borders. Europe is a large collection of such states so if they are taken individually or together they still add up to no action. Now are we done? hehe

On one hand it would be good for the world if the USA to stop Russia in its tracks on the other hand it would be cool to see most of Europe gobbled up by Russia so I could say I told yea so, now is Russia the bad guy yet or are you going to continue making excuses for them comrad?

Yet, if the same statement was made with <insert_any_other_country_here> even more people would laugh.

The US is just as a big of a welfare state as most European countries. Instead of poor people getting the money from the government, the military and military contractors get it. Living on a Military base is like living in a socialist country that the civilians pay all the taxes for. I don't consider anyone who works for the government to be employed because they produce no valuable goods and little valuable services for the people who pay for them to exist.

Right, so for argument's sake you'll say Europe should behave as one state, then say that it's bad because it doesn't. Guess what? Europe isn't one state and doesn't act like one. And no, countries across Europe are not incredibly similar (though I'm sure none of them are close to the USA).

Riiiiiight.
Well, we know you think so. Now tell me, why does "the best the world has to offer" has such a pathetic public transport system? (Yes, I am well aware that the Dutch public transport system is considerably better than most).

Actually, it would be preferable to see Russia nuke the USA back to the stone age so that the rest of us don't have to listen to your drivel any more.

You're both as bad as the other really.

Lenny: you know what they say - an American is a wealthy Russian.

Because just about everybody can afford a car if they want it more than just a little?

Good answers Arthur and Bam.

Being in the military is like being in a socialist situation but there is very little way around this. Defense is one of the legitimate reasons for having a government. Its product is the safety of the nation so saying it does not produce anything is misleading. Managers do not produce anything either but they are needed to make a company run smoothly so dont count them out. I work for the Govt BTW hehe.

The USA is not one state either it is a collection of 50 states hehe.

"countries across Europe are not incredibly similar "

When it comes to doing something outside their own country I think we know most of Europe is in the same boat (do nothing) but make a bold statement of displeasure.

"Lenny: you know what they say - an American is a wealthy Russian."

I have never heard this, what does it even mean to you?

Adding to what Arthur said concerning public transportation. Europeans would have more cars and less public transport if.

1. Your countries had more wealth but do not due to socialism.

2. Your governments have artificially raised the price of fuel to make your own car a bad economic decision. Personally I am glad you guys are taking the hit on this because it means more and cheaper gas for us Americans. Thanks Europe.

Oh finally I've remembered what all this reasoning etc. reminds me. And I'm pretty scared of it: R. A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers - make your own deductions.

You know what they say too?

Oh yes, so the american example to the world is? Let me guess: everybody buy a car, SUV at best, and drive it everyday around your home city. Be nervous in traffic jams and waste fuel just because you want to go shopping to a shop 500 meters away from your home. No thak you.

"You know what they say too?"

I still do not know what you mean by your russian/american comment. Maybe it does not mean any thing at all?

"Oh finally I've remembered what all this reasoning etc. reminds me. And I'm pretty scared of it: R. A. Heinlein's Starship Troopers - make your own deductions.
"

More liberal logic here I guess. What does this non-sense mean as well?

"Oh yes, so the american example to the world is? Let me guess: everybody buy a car, SUV at best, and drive it everyday around your home city. Be nervous in traffic jams and waste fuel just because you want to go shopping to a shop 500 meters away from your home. No thak you."

The main point of this is that in america you have a choice on if you want to do it or not. In Europe the decision has basically been made for you by the government. Doubling the price of fuel by taxing it so incredibly high to alter your behavior is big brother like but I see you like big brother now or atleast thats what you have been told to say.

I was really looking forward to hearing from you again. I wanted some portion of laugh in the evening and you haven't failed If there's a country which resembles orwellian society, you should know it first hand

And regarding your reaction to my comment above, it's clear that you don't read too much. Maybe Heinlein is blacklisted in your great country. What a shame.

Frank Griffins posts actually make more sense if you imagine Peter Griffin saying them. A lot more.

Okay, I need a script to give Frank Griffin a Peter Griffin avatar now ...

Heh I thought Peter Griffin is a comedian, now I've been pleasantly surprised

I figured someone would say that, and it's utter bollocks. For one thing most people here can afford cars (yes, even with fuel being more expensive) and cars can be cheaper or at least very close to public transport.
But of course if someone says something is wrong with the USA then the "USA>>rest of the world" crowd will think of a reason why it's a feature rather than a problem.

There is a good answer as to why public transport is so bad, actually, and it has to do with population density (which is very high in the Netherlands).

You don't have a choice at all! The fact that you have such a horrid public transport system means that you need to have a car because there's no alternative.
So yeah, the government made a choice for you: you need to have a car, there's no alternative.

Asfor "America is great", well, I disagree and very strongly. I might stay there a while, but I certainly wouldn't want to live there long term (but the same goes for most of the rest of the world). Yes, that's because I'm biased in favour of my own country, but at least I'll admit that.

Canada, and especially my city Edmonton has very low population density (30km across, 700k people), and we have a rather decent public transport system, which was starting to suck due to the lack of a beefy train service, but thats been getting upgraded lately, new stations, upgrades to old stations, new branches (its currently just a single straight line, but will probably have two branches coming out of it in the middle some place to go west and east, as well as the current NE-SW track), and they just ordered a new set of trains, the current ones were manufactured in Germany in the late 70s and early 80s. They are as old, or older than I am!

People like to claim population density as a problem for many things, and its really not that good of an excuse. And Driving is definitely way more expensive than using public transit. Here a regular Adult monthly pass is a whole $60 or so. People spend more than that on gas in a month, let alone maintenance and insurance. I get a deal, $30 for my pass its much cheaper than having a junker.

I must admit though, that some tourists from europe (and even Toronto/Quebec) have said that edmonton's transit sucks balls, but I find it decent enough. Some routes lack service on weekends, but overall its a lot better than nothing.

How many trains/trams/busses per hour between destinations within the city? How many local ones (ie, to other nearby towns) in the same time? How good are the connections if you need to transfer from one line to another?
What I'm used to (more or less) is ~15 minute intervals at most, typically 5-10 minutes in town. Some intercity trains only run every half hour, but then you usually have a slow train or another train to a nearby station. Some trains only run directly every hour, but then you have a transfer option at the half hour.
This is in an urban area. In the countryside and smaller villages, local busses and trains may only run every hour or every half hour, but you don't need them to get around the town itself, just to get to neighbouring towns.

What I'm saying is that if you have a low population density, you have fewer people using local transport systems, hence less of a reason to have one. On the other hand, if you're covering a large area with your system, then you can still have a lot of people who will want to use it. So maybe population density is less of a factor that I initially thought.
Conversely and maybe the main point I wanted to make, in the Netherlands the population density is so high that quite simply you cannot tell everyone to just use a car and you need a good transport system that can transport a fair number of people in a short amount of time.

I should elaborate. It's definitely more expensive over shorter distances, but longer distance it starts getting cheaper. Trains get expensive (though I've seen far, far worse).
For my mother I think it's cheaper to take the car to work than the train (it's definitely faster), at least with what I remember for the fuel prices a while back. She may have got a car that drives further for the same amount of fuel since then though.

Of course it depends on what you're used to.

What about after 6pm?

Well, quite!

Schedules vary depending on time of day, but trains (LRT, Light Rail Transit, electric trains, travel at a regular speed of about 40km/h) are 5 minutes peek, 10-15 off peak. Bus service varies depending on time of day and the route. Some run every 5 minutes, some every 10 or 15 (these are the most common), and some on weekends take up to 60 minutes between runs. The two routes to my almost out of city residence come at about 40 minute intervals, and it takes me 10 minutes to get to the nearest stop on foot (I live a few km out of the city).

I didn't think local meant out of the city We have a couple hundred internal city routes, and the ETS (Edmonton Transit Service) provides additional service to a couple other municipalities, and a couple of the larger ones provide their own connections into the city. And times I'm not sure about.

Note, the nearest city close to Edmonton's size is 250km south of us (Calgary).

So far theres only one train line, but as I said, thats expanding. As for bus routes, ever since the reorganization around 2001, connections are almost always perfect. Once in a while you have to wait for the next bus, which varies depending on time of day, and the route (5-60min, some routes on sundays are every hour)

To get to other cities you generally have to drive or take commercial bus services like Red Arrow (motor coach) or Grey Hound (crappy ass tour bus's with little leg room)

There have been talks of a LRT link to the Edmonton International Airport (quite a ways outside town, infact its in the next county), and a high speed train direct to Calgary from there, but so far no decisions about that yet. It would be nice though, top speed on the highways is 110km/h (unless you're like most people here, and speed, going around 120-140km/h), and a high speed train could reach 200km/h or higher getting people there MUCH faster, and likely cheaper than driving the distance.

And if you want to know about country wide passenger trains, they suck donkey balls. Via rail has been cutting back service for so long, I don't think theres a proper station here in edmonton any more, they share most of the rails with CN, and it costs more to take Via than to fly in many cases. they bill it as a relaxing getaway, part of a vacation, etc. total rip off. Also, a train ride to Toronto would take the better part of a week.

Most 5-10min routes change to 10-30min routes when off peek hour service. Some routes completely stop service (school specials mostly)

Indeed, it'd be like New York not having its mass transit (especially the subway). Theres not enough room on the roads for millions of people.

edit, heres a nice map of our transit system (day map):
{"name":"Small_Day_Map_June_08.gif","src":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a8603e8cb2c854e271ece2463274eee7.gif","w":2500,"h":2861,"tn":"\/\/djungxnpq2nug.cloudfront.net\/image\/cache\/a\/8\/a8603e8cb2c854e271ece2463274eee7"}

"And regarding your reaction to my comment above, it's clear that you don't read too much. Maybe Heinlein is blacklisted in your great country. What a shame."

I dont read comic books so I guess that explains it.
A simple explaination of your comment is just too taxing for you I see.

"You don't have a choice at all! The fact that you have such a horrid public transport system means that you need to have a car because there's no alternative.
So yeah, the government made a choice for you: you need to have a car, there's no alternative."

It was human nature that created low public transport and a dispersed city. Most US city layouts are thus a result of human desire. So we got what the majority wanted. That was our choice. Being couped up in a high rise is not human nature.

Russia is still in Georgia proper when it signed a treaty saying they would retreat.
Is Russia looking evil yet?

Let's sum this up:
You are calling one of the most popular science-fiction writers a comic book author.
You are applying double standards by saying Americas transport system is humans choice, while Europe's is made up by the governments.
You are still unable to use forum-mockup like everbody else does, despite being asked to do so several times. Is it too difficult for you? You might ask!
Wanna add more things?

Can we please get over the 'my country is better than yours' talk? it's so silly. We are all human beings, almost 100% alike, for crying out loud.

Well mr. Griffin you are an idiot and you have just proved that.

Sure we can, oh wait we're trying to, but there's this man, who just doesn't see that he and others like him are the main cause why most of the world population is mad at USA. It's not because they envy them something. It's because of arrogance, ignorance and idiocy these people show when dealing with the rest of the world. Period.

A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship. But I doubt you know what I mean by that, you probably think that's what democracy means.

Funny how that works. Around here it did the opposite.
Believe me when I say that I find the idea of living in dispersed suburbs incredibly depressing.

Wait, let me get one thing straight. Poetin (former KGB) has been in power since 1999 (and don't for a moment consider that he's no longer in control) and by now it's downing upon you that Poetin is a dangerous man and that Russia under Poetin is a dangerous country that you should keep a close eye on?
There is one minor comfort at the moment: although a large part of Europe depends on gas from Russia, Russia also depends on the money it earns by selling gas. It's not an absolute guarantee that they don't get funny ideas, but it reduces the chance, at least in the short run. Russia also has major economic and social problems, and a declining population.

We all are that at one point or the other. For example, we Greeks are arrogant (and racist) to some of our neighbors.

In the end, and looking to things from a distance, what separates us from each other? in reality, nothing. We are all alike.

Consider this discussion from the perspective of the year 3000. Isn't it silly? the exact same discussion will take place, but instead of USA we will talk about another country.

Isn't it time for humanity to break away from all this silliness?

Thanks for backing up what I said earlier. People in the USA are just like everyone else, it is our form of government and economic system that makes the USA so great.

Some people still see Russia as the poor victim in the Georgia case so I still say is Russia evil yet to those people.

"A dictatorship by the majority is still a dictatorship. But I doubt you know what I mean by that, you probably think that's what democracy means."

I doubt you know much of anything but the USA is a Republic not a democracy. Many things in america occur due to natural process called capitalism. Learn about it some time.

"Believe me when I say that I find the idea of living in dispersed suburbs incredibly depressing."

Since thats probably all you know I do not blame you for fearing the unknown.

"You are calling one of the most popular science-fiction writers a comic book author."

This guy is so famous I never heard of him, amazing.

"You are applying double standards by saying Americas transport system is humans choice, while Europe's is made up by the governments"

To help you out with this a bit I will explain in more detail. European governments tax fuels at a high amount. This makes fuel more expensive. People in Europe can not afford to drive far or drive big cars due to tiny socialist pay checks. This basically artificially reduces the choices available to Europeans. Europeans then resort to subsidised public transportation.

In America fuel is taxed at a low amount. People are then free to do as they wish due to being able to afford fuels at close to their true value.

"You are still unable to use forum-mockup like everbody else does, despite being asked to do so several times. Is it too difficult for you? You might ask!"

I am free to do as a will are you? I have been asking for you paycheck each week and despite being asked to do so several times, you are still unable to comply. Is it too difficult for you?

Yeah, being billions in the red is great

That's almost a Piccoloism.

Your government and your economic system are exactly why I wouldn't want to live there long term.

Yes, absolutely. Sure. Right. Whatever.

Yeah Frank, I think you're an idiot too. On top of that, I don't like you.
That has to do with your political views and even more with the way in which you express them. In particular the tunnel vision that makes you blind to the fact that they are your views, not absolute truths. It does not have to do with my estimate of what you know or your intelligence. I'll thank you for not making insulting remarks in that area.
Now then. The USA is a republic. Sure (incidentally, I never said otherwise). So is France. So is Germany. Both are also democracies. The Netherlands and the UK are kingdoms. Those are democracies too. Not in the sense of ancient Athens, of course, but in the sense that the people cast their votes to elect the government.

Again with the personal attacks. Well, as I said, I don't like you either.

NEWS FLASH: European governments are elected by the people living there. Well, in Western Europe they are.

Actually, most can (but don't have to/want to).

You mean oversized fuel-guzzling money-wasting cars, right? Who in their right mind wants to drive one of those anyway?

There are exactly 0 socialist countries in Europe at the moment.

How about we stop feeding the troll.

I agree, SUVs are a complete waste of money. It's a waste of gas to drive a pickup truck casually. With this, I agree. However, if you're actually using the truck for something practical, like hauling a load or driving off-road, then they are absolutely practical and well worth the extra gas. And I don't know if you intended to, but please don't imply that gas-guzzling muscle cars are money wasters... The gas doesn't just disappear. You get a glorious sound, awe-inspiring acceleration, and a damn scary top speed. These are all very cool things that are well worth the money to people that enjoy that sort of thing. And it's a damn shame that Europe lacks a passion for this kind of car.

And setting oil fields on fire gives you a glorious flame, awe-inspiring colors, and a damn scary temperature.

That's different.

People who enjoy muscle cars == people who enjoy burning oilfields == waste of space. I see no difference.

Didn't you just say not to feed the... oh, never mind. It's Bamccaig, at least he argues with some reasoning.

Just saying "that's different!" qualifies as reasonable arguing?

I have to use that sometimes.

Technically the muscle car still serves a practical purpose. It still gets you from point A to B. There are fundamental differences between owning, maintaining, and driving a muscle car; and burning an oil field. The only thing burning the oil field really accomplishes is consuming fuel and providing a spectacle. The heat isn't likely to be practical in any sense so it's mostly wasted (and I've never really seen anybody that enjoys a lot of heat; it's one of those things that is interesting to experience, but quickly becomes unbearable). All I'm really trying to get at is that one serves may practical purposes and the other is mostly wasteful. I made a weak argument (we've already had this argument in the past though) and Matthew Leverton called me on it.

Same applies to a car with 1.6 liter motor. Gets you from A to B in the same time as a muscle car if you drive by law plus it will cost you less. However I'm not arguing about using SUV for driving into a cabin in the mountains or hauling some cargo.

Sure. If you have a use for them, then by all means use them. Most people don't need them though.

If you don't need one and could use a more gas-efficient alternative, then you're wasting fuel and therefor money. Now, I don't have a problem with people wasting their own money if that's what they want to do (it's their money, afterall), but I really don't see the point in doing it (maybe I'm just stingy).
Wasting fuel is another matter, I do think that's somewhat irresponsible in this day and age.

You mean, an aweful lot of horrible noise?

Neither of which make that much sense if you're driving it around a city, or even on a highway with speed restrictions.

As I say, it's their money to waste.

Nope, I think it's absolutely great that it does. Even without there's more than enough people driving them.

Now, I'd intended to make a statement about public transport being provided by private companies that need to pay for fuel just like anyone else, rather than state owned companies payed off fuel taxes, but I'm not sure whether I should?

Putin appears the think that the USA instigated this war. Would this be a first?

Ron Paul would agree. Well, not maybe with the (ridiculous) details of the claim, but the idea itself.

"Again with the personal attacks. Well, as I said, I don't like you either."

Talking about the personal attacks. You use a very LIBERAL version of the word personal attack. I merely think you are ignorant in some topics. I do not like or hate you. I wonder how you jumped to the the conclusion that I did not like you. I suggest a good therapist or learn to not take things so personally. I have some very good friends that are ignorant on world matters just like you.

"Putin appears the think that the USA instigated this war [stuff.co.nz]. Would this be a first?"

This has been postulated on insane liberal blogs long before Putin said anything about it. Many bad countries around the world use liberal talking points.

When an oil well is put on fire I bet the fire starter did not actually own the oil well they set on fire. For the muscle car I bet they owned the car as well as the gas.

LennyLen are you a troll?

"Yeah, being billions in the red is great"

It is not a big problem when the GDP is in the trillions.

The fact is, the guys (and even a few girls) that love this stuff have good reason to. It's something that we just feel deep inside when we hear American muscle or rice rockets. Your heart races and you can't fight the joy it gives you (nor would you want to).

The following videos are from a TV show I used to watch a few years ago (I think it's been canceled now, though there are similar shows still on, but I wish I had the time to watch and that the shows I used to love were still on). Watch them or don't. I don't really care. It's a little bit of education for those of you uneducated. If you don't care, then don't watch them.

Dodge Charger - American Muscle Car - part 1
Dodge Charger - American Muscle Car - part 2
Dodge Charger - American Muscle Car - part 3

I agree 100%. Stock trucks are not inherently cool cars to drive around. They are practical work-horses. A lot of people drive them around because they're in fashion so to speak in North America and it pisses me off. Largely because the bitches (male and female) driving them daily can't drive them worth shit. The small grocery store nearby now has a diagonal parking lot, even though the concrete blocks are parallel to the parking lot, and everybody used to park perpendicular to them. The only reason for the change is large pickup trucks and stupid people driving them. Those are not car guys driving them. They are (ugh) normal people.

The thing is, car guys don't drive to get from point A to B. Of course, when we have somewhere to be we often drive, but we also drive for the pleasure in driving. We just enjoy muscle cars and the extra expenses that go along with them are welcomed (think of gamers with expensive gaming machines, etc.; it's the same idea).

I don't think it's irresponsible to burn the fuel. After all, you paid for it, do what you want with it. Mankind will make do with what we have and shortages in one fuel source will only increase demand for other fuel sources. We will get by. I must drive people crazy; they're complaining about gas prices and I'm revving my engine in a parking lot.

Maybe it's an acquired taste, but car guys love the sounds. Maybe the sounds are horrible in Europe, but here in North America what we call muscle cars definitely sound awesome.

It can still be fun, even if you have to be a little reserved about it. And showing off a little can be fun as well. Spread the joy. I love to see muscle cars get a little loud and loose now and then.

You can't take it with you when you go. If you can afford to, and many people in North America can , and it brings you joy, then it makes sense to spend the money.

Anyone can be, but you definitely are, all the time.

It comes from the tactless and inconsiderate way you talk. I would have said "the way you try and prove your points", but you haven't once tried to actually prove any of your arguments

And though I can't find a good YouTube video for the original Dukes Of Hazzard show, here's a scene from the movie remake (which was a little different, but still awesome).

I guess it takes one to know one doesnt it.

"you haven't once tried to actually prove any of your arguments "

Your inability to connect the dots does not mean you have not had a million things proven to you. Keep chugging along you will catch on someday.

Russia now says it is absorbing those parts of Georgia into itself. When will they begin absorbing Thomas's country? Then I will ask him again if Russia is a nice country.

The OSCE has put out a press release, according to Der Spiegel, that it is Georgia that should be blamed for the crisis in Caucasus.

Links:

http://www.osce.org/
http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,575396,00.html
the above translated to English

Georgia attacked first.

Now can we please stop blaming Russia for the crisis?

Ummm, no one has said Russia attacked first.

The issue from my perspective is that Russia was there outside of any UN mandate and overstepped the bounds of its self proclaimed 'peace keeping' role and executed a wider war on Georgia. Russia violated the territorial sovereinity of Georgia and continues to do so in violation of the EU sponsored cease fire it signed with Georgia.

They are also the only country to recognize the breakaway regions. This is also a violation of Georgian sovereignty.

They try to justify their actions by citing US action in Iraq when the situations bare little resemblance. US had a UN mandate to rid Iraq of WMD's and acted with other nations. Russia acted alone with no mandate.

Russia justifies recognizing the breakaway provinces by citing Nato/EU granting independance to Kosovo, when again the situation bare little resemblance. Serbia was committing genocide in Kosovo. Russia is ethnically cleansing south Ossetia.

They have already forced all Georgians out of Ossetia and are not allowing them to return to their homes in S. Ossetia.

I've read that Russia justification gets wide coverage in European countries. I would hope that the people of Europe could see beyond their blind US hatred to recognize that the Russia's comparison of its actions with those of the US/UN/EU/Nato actions in Iraq and Kosovo is absurd.

Russia foreign policy is that of a petulant child, nothing more.

(but I'm sure I'll be disappointed, again.)

I know a woman. Using Frank's [kiddies playground] logic, I therefore am one. Instantomatic sex change, boys and girls.

Are you oblivious to previous posts, pointing out this claim is incorrect:

Hehe, liberal fascist. Good one.

Does intentional disregard of proper forum formatting warrant a ban? I think it does, but until then perhaps we all could "foster" Frank by not replying to anything he says? I know it is a bit callous, but he just doesn't seem to get it no matter how long he is "chugging along".

Are you 12?

I can only hope you are just a troll, and not this dumb I have hope for you young one.

They could have, oh wait they haven't like HardTranceFan pointed out, but the funny thing is that no WMD's were found in Iraq. So the situation is pretty the same. Oh and by the way a document stating that Iraq is harboring/financing Al-Qaeda was a forgery.

A rather obvious forgery as well. It also just "magically" fell into their laps at just the right moment with all of the info they needed to justify their actions, and then some. A very convenient forgery.

But all the western media blame Russia for the crisis. I read NY Times and Liberation articles almost daily, and their song is 'bad Russia, bad Russia'.

And the war on Yugoslavia and the recent war in Iraq were outside of any UN mandate. In fact, USA blames UN as 'corrupted' and wants UN to be dismantled.

Recognizing Kossovo is also a violation of Serbia's sovereignty. Recognizing "Macedonia" is a violation of Greece's sovereignty. Recognizing North Cyprus is a violation of Cyprus sovereignty. And there are also other cases...

Which goes on to show the hypocrisy of the west.

What other nations? it was US, England and Spain. No other country supported the war in Iraq.

Stopping a genocide is very different from taking a piece of land from one's country.

Georgia attacked South Ossetia and also tried to commit genocide on South Ossetians. Russia prevented that.

Ok, I am with you on this. Before letting Georgians return to their homes, why don't you tell Turkey to stop occupying Northen Cyprus? Cypriots want to go to their homes as well.

There is no 'blind US hatred'. I will state facts that I have stated again in the past:

1) US supported dictatorships around the world: Chile, Greece, etc.
2) US is not fair with its politics. It applies double standards all the time. It lets Israel get away with many atrocities in Palestine, yet it takes action on Kossovo and other places.
3) US recognized 'Macedonia', where no self-respected Historian around the world can attribute the culture of Macedonia to Bulgarians.
4) US lets Turkey get away with occupying Cyprus. It was an invasion...yet it's ok for the US.
5) US used drug money to fuel wars in South America.

There are many other facts like the above.

I am not saying that Russia is innocent or anything...Stalin was the world's worst criminal, far more than Hitler. But...you can't go around and play the world's Sheriff, not portrait yourself as a superhero that saves the world from problems. You are just supporting your own interests, and this has nothing to do with supporting good around the globe.

So, even if it is not fair, people around the globe are siding with Russia. Get your priorities straight, be honest and don't apply double standards, and then perhaps the world will have a different opinion for you.

Okay, it seems like most of you agree with axilmars position. Fine. Let Russia have S. Ossetia and Azbekia. I don't care. It's you're continent.

My question is this: what are your collective thoughts on extrapolating Russias actions into the future? Will Belaruss and Ukrain host Russian 'peace keepers' in the near future? Will Russia 'peace keep' all of Georgia?

Is this likely?

Will you support Russia then as you do today if it does happen?

Edit; and axilmar, that's quiet a laundry list of grievances you've got there, unfortuanately, I don't care. Why are you so hung up on ancient history?

I'm not advocating Russia accepting independence of those territories. As for your question. I fear of them taking action in Ukraine or Belarus and USA should fear of that too. I doubt Russia will do that however if that would ever happen, it would have dangerous consequences. As far as Georgia comes I don't think they will "peace keep" them - anyway that would be too much.

You know the biggest problem is that Saakashvili got too confident and tried to mess with Russia. That's the core of a Caucasian crisis.

"ou know the biggest problem is that Saakashvili got too confident and tried to mess with Russia. "

I think Georgia messed with Georgia is more like it.

"1 US supported dictatorships around the world: Chile, Greece, etc."

It is an unfortunate reality of the world. It looks like everyone dealing with Russia may be doing just that as well.

"2) US is not fair with its politics. It applies double standards all the time. It lets Israel get away with many atrocities in Palestine, yet it takes action on Kossovo and other places."

Your very misguided on this one. I do not see Israel suicide bombing palestine people. Israel allows for peace and the rag heads break the peace by blowing up more people.

"3) US recognized 'Macedonia', where no self-respected Historian around the world can attribute the culture of Macedonia to Bulgarians."

Cultures and the name of a country to not have to match.

"4) US lets Turkey get away with occupying Cyprus. It was an invasion...yet it's ok for the US."

It seems like all of Europe let turkey get away with it. It does not get more in europes back yard than this.

"5) US used drug money to fuel wars in South America."

I think many people went to jail over that incident also.

"There is no 'blind US hatred'"

There is a blind hatred of those more successful and the most successful is the USA.

The positive actions of the USA far out weigh any of your perceived bad actions. Many of the positive actions most of the world are oblivious of. Patrolling the seas is in the USA's interest but a side effect is that shipping lanes are open for all nations. It would be easy enough for the usa to not allow competing nations goods to ship freely. We could have charged a tariff r something for free of hassle shipping. All these things are taken for granted. This proves that many of you are spoiled by the current world conditions and have no idea how bad the world would actually be without the USA. Lets all hope you guys can continue living in your dream world.

Like I have said before I would be more than happy if the USA left most of the world to the wolves in order for Europe and other namby pamby nations to appreaciate what the USA does again. Like most personal relationships, we get complacent and fail to see all the good our partner does. A good dose of tuff love would do so much good for another 30 or 40 years.

"Are you 12?"

takes one to know one right?

"Does intentional disregard of proper forum formatting warrant a ban?"

Just like a good liberal to change the subject when they are losing a debate. Does being annal warrant a forum ban? If so maybe Arvidsson should be banned.

"without UN support"

What does this mean exactly? Does it mean the USA enforced the toothless UN threats concerning IRAQ or does it mean the UN sent no troops for the Iraq invasion because they had not men available and were stretched too thin solving the problem in Darfur?

"I know a woman. Using Frank's [kiddies playground] logic, I therefore am one."

So HardTranceFan admits that he is a girl. That would explain some of his spinelessness. You can take care of that by getting a job or moving to a liberal country that covers such mental disorders.