Russian Tanks Enter S. Ossetia (Thread Separated)

[ParanoiA]

That's a well stated point on Russia and the SSR. I remember growing up in the 80's and using Russia and the USSR synonymously. No doubt, that's entirely misleading.

 

I think it is worth pointing out here that in the rush to declare a new cold war, Georgia has basically got away completely internationally with trying to violently bring a region that had declared it's wish for independence (ah, self-determination, the most unevenly applied Western ideal in history) under central control. The only country that's called them on it is, of course, Russia.

 

Yeah, this is exactly where I've been sitting. It's hard to for me to work out.

 

We hold honest Abe in esteem for preserving our union with the bloodiest conflict on our soil. Which goes against the notion that a state has a right to secede if it wishes. However, I wholeheartedly admit that it seems obvious that secession be a basic right, to be respected. It would seem to put pressure on the union to earn it's member states - implying a check or balance in the form of merit. That's very attractive to me.

 

On the other hand, it could be argued that allowing the union to be purely a mutual agreement by the member states could be strategically dangerous. Akin to letting your daughter walk the streets in downtown kansas city at 3 in the morning. Sure it's a right, but it's pragmatically stupid. Divide and conquer is a tried and true strategy, historically effective. So, allowing your union to do it of its own accord, without the meddling hand of an enemy, would seem to be a naive, precious gift to a patient imperial power. And perhaps survival basics trump human notions of rights.

[Pangloss]

I think it is worth pointing out here that in the rush to declare a new cold war, Georgia has basically got away completely internationally with trying to violently bring a region that had declared it's wish for independence (ah, self-determination, the most unevenly applied Western ideal in history) under central control. The only country that's called them on it is, of course, Russia.

 

Not that I'm defending Georgia (or disagreeing with you at all), but does anybody out there believe that Russia wants South Ossetia to be an independent state?

 

 

*shrugs* It doesn't excuse Russia's excessive, and transparently Machiavellian, response, but the (especially American) media's coverage of this thing has been horrid. For example: Russia did not invade S. Ossetia. I've heard that way too much. Russia was already in S. Ossetia on a peacekeeping mission, Georgia invaded it. The Russians reinforced their troops there and then invaded Georgia. And Russia did not invade Czechoslovakia. The Soviet Union (and Warsaw Pact) did, which Georgia was a part of. The leader of the Soviet Union at that time? A Ukrainian. Yet Neil Cavuto gets on the video with Sakashvili and lets him cite that as a famous example of Russian aggression. It seems like a nit-picky point, but the Soviet Union really was something different that simply "Russia." In fact, organizationally, the Russian Soviet Federal Socialist Republic was intentionally kept the weakest of the Soviet Socialist Republics, because the Communist Party feared that if anyone would challenge its authority, it would be a Russian political leader (and look who it ended up being, President of the RSFSR Boris Yeltsin). What the Communist Party did, it did for its own reasons, not Russia's, and there were always Georgians right at the highest levels of power in that Party, just as there were citizens of almost every SSR. (No one would care to recall Josef Dzhugashvili, would they? Or you might know him as Joseph Stalin.)

 

Nice analysis of a very complex situation.

[bombus]

Russia has no interest in occupying countries/ It is no longer communist. It does however wish to maintain/expand it's sphere of influence, just like the US does. It would not occupy South Ossetia against the will of the people, but it will not have to. The Russians are the liberating heroes of the S. Ossetians now!

 

Thus reminding us that news site comments are about as insightful as callers on Rush Limbaugh or Air America.

 

Are you honestly saying you can't see the comparison between Kosovo and South Ossetia?

That first argument might actually work if (a) Russia had only entered S. Ossetia, instead of invading all over Georgia,

 

NATO bombed the crap out of Serbia, totally destroying it's infrastructure, and were just to scared to deploy gropund troops (as ever). Russia have just done the same thing using tanks and ground troops, and have actually done far less damage to Georgia than NATO did to Serbia. Securing borders in such conflicts is all about destroying the enemies capability to fight back.

 

and/or (b) there wasn't this larger geopolitical, realpolitik struggle taking place for control over the resources of the region.

 

And you don't think there was over Serbia? What planet are you on?

 

As for your follow-up, I've already quoted sources that this dispute is not US-derived.

 

It has CIA written all over it. It's how they work! How do you think the President of Georgia got to power in the first place? Who do you think funded his rise to power, and whole Georgian 'Rose Revolution'?

 

The EU is taking the diplomatic point on this (Georgia wants to join the EU, not the US), and the truce came from French president Sarkozy, not the US. The "meddling" began at Georgia's invitation and was a joint venture between European and American companies.

 

EU/US, same thing!

 

You know, it's bad enough when the ABB arguments are so shallow they won't get the tops of your shoes wet, but when they're debunked before they're even posted it becomes pretty obvious that the only reason it IS being posted is to perpetuate the message. I guess no matter how poorly reasoned an argument is, if you say it enough times, sooner or later people will repeat it.

 

You've debunked nothing yet.

Edited August 17, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

Russia has no interest in occupying countries/ It is no longer communist.

 

It's ironic that I'm saying this to you, but communism wasn't what drove the Soviet Union to occupy other countries. It was control over resources that did that, and those factors are exactly the same today as they were in the 1950s.

 

 

It has CIA written all over it.

 

EU/US, same thing!

 

Um, wow.

 

You do know that we have a Speculations subboard, right? Just wondering.

[bombus]

It's ironic that I'm saying this to you, but communism wasn't what drove the Soviet Union to occupy other countries. It was control over resources that did that, and those factors are exactly the same today as they were in the 1950s.

 

The soviet union controlled neighbouring countries in the same way as the US controlled western countries. Read more history my friend.

 

 

 

 

Um, wow.

 

You do know that we have a Speculations subboard, right? Just wondering.

 

Your wide-eyed innocence is very sweet.

[iNow]

It's curious to see how strongly Putin still holds power, as well as the near unilateral agreement across the world that Russia is in the wrong. They've signed their agreement, but don't seem to keen on leaving. It's also making the US look weak since we have little to nothing with which to stand behind our words of condemnation.

 

The reality of the matter is that we need Russia's help to get a grasp on nuclear proliferation, we need their help to keep Iran and N.Korea in their place, we need their help on global warming, and we can't just say "You're not allowed to be in the G8, so there!"

[bombus]

It's curious to see how strongly Putin still holds power, as well as the near unilateral agreement across the world that Russia is in the wrong. They've signed their agreement, but don't seem to keen on leaving. It's also making the US look weak since we have little to nothing with which to stand behind our words of condemnation.

 

The reality of the matter is that we need Russia's help to get a grasp on nuclear proliferation, we need their help to keep Iran and N.Korea in their place, we need their help on global warming, and we can't just say "You're not allowed to be in the G8, so there!"

 

Putin and the Russian President Medvedev have the popular support in Russia most presidents would die for. I am disappointed that Russia is being seen in such a bad light. Hardly a mention of the atrocities inflicted by Georgia which started this recent conflict. No congratulations for Russia saving the S. Ossetians. Worryingly biased media in the West in my opinion.

 

I agree that we need to remain friends with Russia. The alternative doesn't bear thinking about.

 

Also, funny how everyone lets China off for its invasion and occupation of Tibet - and Isreal for its occupation of Palestine, Morroco for its occupation of Western Sahara, the list goes on I'm sure...

 

The bullshit piles up so fast one needs wings to stay above it.

 

What is 'the place' of Iran and N. Korea by the way?

Edited August 17, 2008 by bombus

[Pangloss]

What is 'the place' of Iran and N. Korea by the way?

 

Under the control of the CIA, of course. Read more history my friend!

[iNow]

What is 'the place' of Iran and N. Korea by the way?

 

"The place" is one where they are not launching nuclear missiles at anyone, especially under religious motivations.

[bombus]

Under the control of the CIA, of course. Read more history my friend!

 

With that statement you reveal a lot!

 

"The place" is one where they are not launching nuclear missiles at anyone, especially under religious motivations.

 

Like now you mean?

 

btw. found this: http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20535.htm

Edited August 17, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[CaptainPanic]

I find the move that Georgia's president has made really stupid. Georgia has attacked Russian troops. Ok, these were on official Georgian territory, in Ossetia, but with Georgian consent.

 

Russia responded by bringing more troops into Ossetia, crushing Georgian troops, and then continued their attack into undisputed sovereign Georgian territory.

 

Russia already had loads of troops in the region (it's next door from Chechnya)... and the small Georgian army is no match.

 

Now they have a war on their hands which they cannot win. Georgia was looking to the west, and that gets Europe and the USA involved.

 

NATO is already stepping in, and telling nasty things to Russia. Russia has withdrawn its troops from a combined Russian/NATO exercise in the Baltic sea. NATO is now more strongly supporting Georgia which further offends Russia. Russia now refuses the US navy from accessing Kamchatka.

 

Then to further light the fire, the Polish government has sealed a deal with the US army to build the rocket shield.

 

I fear that the relations between East and West are going back to that of the 80's of the previous century. The war-rhetoric that I have heard from the US government really is totally stupid. The US has the attitude which says "Listen and Obey, We are Stronger than you...", which of course only offends the Russians.

 

Finally the French president Sarkozy has reached a deal that the Russians will withdraw on Friday (with more smooth talks than the idiots in from the pentagon and US government) ... I really hope that they will listen, although I am afraid that Russian pride will prevent cooperation with European plans, because it also means agreeing to threats from the USA.

 

People forget how nice it is to have open borders between east and west... crappy politicians only think about their own pride.

 

source (unfortunately in Dutch):

http://www.volkskrant.nl/buitenland/article1057569.ece/NAVO_waarschuwt_Moskou_krachtig

http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/235667/Spanning-tussen-Moskou-en-NAVO.html

http://www.depers.nl/buitenland/235661/Poolse-regering-keurt-raketdeal-goed.html

 

[edit] Hmm, hadn't noticed the "Russian Tanks Enter S. Ossetia (Thread Separated)" thread, because I only did a search on "georgia" and checked the results with my eyes closed. I'm ok with adding this post to the end of that thread.

Edited August 20, 2008 by CaptainPanic

[bombus]

The USA is a state that must always remain at war with someone. It makes enemies around the world to justify military spending so that the companies can get rich out of US taxpayers. You are all being ripped off by your government, which is the executive commitee of the companies. Russia are not a threat to the USA way of life anymore, but the US government had to make them an enemy 'cos your soon gonna have to leave Iraq and Afghanistan ('cos it aint goin' too well boys!) and you need a new enemy. There's always Iran I suppose if Russia don't play ball...

 

see here:http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article20577.htm

[Pangloss]

The USA is a state that must always remain at war with someone.

 

You are all being ripped off by your government, which is the executive commitee of the companies. There's always Iran I suppose if Russia don't play ball...

 

I disagree. People who achieve power in the US ultimately and invariably find that they have to answer to the people and to the judgment of history. The proof is in the pudding -- governments lose authority and can no longer pass the bills they want, politicians fall out of favor, poll ratings drop, and the people demand change.

 

You're also wrong about the nature and motivation of American politicians. There's little if any evidence of pure power-seekers, and there's always at least a stated reason before they start lobbing the smart bombs. The reasons we get into wars may be wrong or mistaken, but reasons exist -- they don't do it because of a need to "remain at war with someone".

 

Your statements reveal a complete, fundamental lack of understanding of why Americans get into government, what they do when they get there, the level of scrutiny and accountability they face while in power, and the self-assessment we do as a society afterwards.

 

We may not be very good at not repeating the mistakes of history (sometimes), but we're pretty darned good at leveling blame and writing down how we feel about it. (lol)

Edited August 22, 2008 by Pangloss

[ParanoiA]

Your statements reveal a complete, fundamental lack of understanding of why Americans get into government, what they do when they get there, the level of scrutiny and accountability they face while in power, and the self-assessment we do as a society afterwards.

 

I think this is a consequence of his belief that capitalism is responsible for starting wars - competing for resources (the natural state of affairs for all living things for millions and millions of years) instead of just sharing them equally.

 

The USA is a state that must always remain at war with someone. It makes enemies around the world to justify military spending so that the companies can get rich out of US taxpayers. You are all being ripped off by your government, which is the executive commitee of the companies. Russia are not a threat to the USA way of life anymore, but the US government had to make them an enemy 'cos your soon gonna have to leave Iraq and Afghanistan ('cos it aint goin' too well boys!) and you need a new enemy. There's always Iran I suppose if Russia don't play ball...

 

Are you kidding? We don't need any of them, we can dream up an enemy any ole time. Going to war is a snap here. Congress sure as hell won't get in your way...

[CaptainPanic]

Capitalism is reposible for war in a way that weapons manufacturers have lobbies for selling things that are purely designed to kill people or destroy things. Their purpose is to sell more, and have a growing market. They have a benefit from war, because their revenues go up. And the USA spends about 10% of its money on weapons and its army.

 

But we really shouldn't rule out religion's influence. More people were killed in the name of god than in the name of capitalism.

[ParanoiA]

Capitalism is reposible for war in a way that weapons manufacturers have lobbies for selling things that are purely designed to kill people or destroy things. Their purpose is to sell more, and have a growing market. They have a benefit from war, because their revenues go up. And the USA spends about 10% of its money on weapons and its army.

 

But we really shouldn't rule out religion's influence. More people were killed in the name of god than in the name of capitalism.

 

Well, are we talking about american capitalism? We don't need to actually kill people and destory things in order to create demand to buy weapons. Whether we use them or not, makes little difference as to whether or not we buy them. We're constantly, and rightly, investing in our military and its continuous advancement with or without using any of it.

 

Now, I can see how "ammo" purchasing would obviously go up during war, but the machines themselves, which is where most of the money is at, don't really need a war to justify their development and sale. And it's not like we're losing equipment on any magnitude, in any of our recent conflicts anyway, that would create a need to restock any quicker than peace time.

 

Obviously, weapons manufacturers are as capitalistic as automobile manufacturers and want to sell all they can, and that's to be expected.

 

But, let's not forget that the international market is, by its very nature, unfettered capitalism. An all out competition for resources and it doesn't matter how each nation is internally governed, they externally compete with the rest of us - and that's what wars are all about.

 

So capitalism, when defining the state of affairs between groups of humans we call nations, could certainly be indicted - but then, that's the structure of nature itself so I'm not sure what the point is...passing judgement on mother nature?

[bombus]

...governments lose authority and can no longer pass the bills they want, politicians fall out of favor, poll ratings drop, and the people demand change.

 

The companies couldn't give a damn who's in power. Republican and Democrat administrations are the same, apart from some frills around the edges! The unelected people who actually have the power stay exactly where they are - in power! The US is a state run by oligarchs, with the front of democracy so the oligarchs never get found out. Who do you think funds presidential campaigns! Why is it only rich people get to be President - or even get in the running? The 'land of opportunity' is a myth. The US is a land run by the rich for the rich.

 

You're also wrong about the nature and motivation of American politicians. There's little if any evidence of pure power-seekers, and there's always at least a stated reason before they start lobbing the smart bombs. The reasons we get into wars may be wrong or mistaken, but reasons exist -- they don't do it because of a need to "remain at war with someone".

 

Russia pose no real threat to the US - certainly no more than the the EU does. Why is the US trying to pick a fight with Russia? A fight it can't ever win!

 

Your statements reveal a complete, fundamental lack of understanding of why Americans get into government, what they do when they get there, the level of scrutiny and accountability they face while in power, and the self-assessment we do as a society afterwards.

 

What scrutiny?! That's a joke! Anyway, the politicians are mostly as much kept ion the dark as the citizens.

 

We may not be very good at not repeating the mistakes of history (sometimes), but we're pretty darned good at leveling blame and writing down how we feel about it. (lol)

 

This time, there may be no-one left to blame anyone...

[Pangloss]

The unelected people who actually have the power stay exactly where they are - in power! The US is a state run by oligarchs, with the front of democracy so the oligarchs never get found out. Who do you think funds presidential campaigns! Why is it only rich people get to be President - or even get in the running? The 'land of opportunity' is a myth. The US is a land run by the rich for the rich.

 

Prove it.

 

 

Russia pose no real threat to the US - certainly no more than the the EU does. Why is the US trying to pick a fight with Russia? A fight it can't ever win!

 

I have seen no evidence of a pending US attack on Russia in any story on the situation in Georgia. If you think that's the case, what is your evidence?

 

 

What scrutiny?! That's a joke! Anyway, the politicians are mostly as much kept ion the dark as the citizens.

 

Prove it.

 

 

This time, there may be no-one left to blame anyone...

 

Why is that?

[bombus]

1. Do I need to? Really? How much do you think a Presidential campaign costs to run? Where do you suppose that money comes from? Can you think of one recent president who wasnt rich? C'mon, get real!

 

2. If the US does not consider Russia to be threat why the missile shield and missiles in eastern Europe. Only a moron actually thinks its to defend against Iran! Why the US meddling in Ukraine, Poland, Cech Republic, GEORGIA etc. Why the US warships now deployed to the Black Sea? Why this blame of Russia and no mention of the Georgian attack on innocent civilians that prompted a Russian response! The US is very busy making Russia look like a threat.

 

3. Haliburton

 

4. The big bang

 

Now, I can see how "ammo" purchasing would obviously go up during war, but the machines themselves, which is where most of the money is at, don't really need a war to justify their development and sale. And it's not like we're losing equipment on any magnitude, in any of our recent conflicts anyway, that would create a need to restock any quicker than peace time.

 

It's not just current wars - it's the perceived need for such a huge military. What is the US defence budget? Who pays for it and where does that money actually end up? Follow the money and all is revealed.

[iNow]

While he and I often disagree on matters of politics, I have to agree completely with Pangloss on this. Bombus, your points are not supportable, and appear to be completely made up opinions. Opinions are fine, but you cannot come here and offer them as if they were facts.

[ParanoiA]

It's not just current wars - it's the perceived need for such a huge military. What is the US defence budget? Who pays for it and where does that money actually end up? Follow the money and all is revealed.

 

Not sure, but I believe it's around 10% of our budget. We, the taxpayers, pay for it. I like a huge, strong military. I prefer to have at least twice the military might of our closest number two superpower, at all times, preferably more. The military should be so daunting that no nation would risk an invasion or major conflict for even the best of reasons.

 

Naturally, I would assume all nations would enjoy that security. Naturally, I would assume all of us attempt to achieve it. And naturally still, I would assume that only a mere few of us can even come close. And even naturally still, I would assume all others to be resentful...bombus.

[Sisyphus]

In 2007, total U.S. military spending was actually about $626 billion*, about 23% of total federal spending, or 4.6% of GDP.

 

That's about average considering the size of the U.S. economy. For example, France spends 2.6% of its GDP on its military, and Israel 9.4%. China's military budget is officially 4.3% of GDP, but it's probably quite a bit higher. The historic high for the United States was 1944, when 37.8% of GDP went to the military.

 

I suppose you could, of course, argue that given our relative wealth, a lower percentage would be appropriate, but still, it's not as if we're a military state.

 

*This figure is a little bit tricky, and there are a lot of conflicting sources. The official U.S. military budget was $439 billion, but that didn't include funding the Iraq and Afghanistan wars ($170 billion), maintenance of the nuclear arsenal, "black ops" projects not listed on public documents, Veterans Affairs, etc. Depending on how it's calculated, it could be significantly higher or lower.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Sisyphus

[bombus]

Not sure, but I believe it's around 10% of our budget. We, the taxpayers, pay for it. I like a huge, strong military. I prefer to have at least twice the military might of our closest number two superpower, at all times, preferably more. The military should be so daunting that no nation would risk an invasion or major conflict for even the best of reasons.

 

Naturally, I would assume all nations would enjoy that security. Naturally, I would assume all of us attempt to achieve it. And naturally still, I would assume that only a mere few of us can even come close. And even naturally still, I would assume all others to be resentful...bombus.

 

Yeah you strike me as the sort of right-winger who likes a strong military. I bet you always play the Germans in Blitzkrieg...

 

However, to be serious, if that budget was spent clothing and feeding the poor and disposessed of the world everyone would love the USA and there would be no need to have a huge military to feel safe. Terrorism would have no oxygen to breath and grow. A few nukes is all you'd need to stop invasion!

 

While he and I often disagree on matters of politics, I have to agree completely with Pangloss on this. Bombus, your points are not supportable, and appear to be completely made up opinions. Opinions are fine, but you cannot come here and offer them as if they were facts.

 

Hey, this is a politics thread - since when has politics been a science!

 

However, regardless of that I beg to differ. I am merely interpreting the facts in a certain way. You may disagree, and that's fine, but please say which bits you disagree with and give me a chance to change your mind.

[ParanoiA]

Yeah you strike me as the sort of right-winger who likes a strong military. I bet you always play the Germans in Blitzkrieg...

 

However' date=' to be serious, if that budget was spent clothing and feeding the poor and disposessed of the world everyone would love the USA and there would be no need to have a huge military to feel safe. Terrorism would have no oxygen to breath and grow. A few nukes is all you'd need to stop invasion![/quote']

 

And if all the people in the world could just love each other there would be no hate...

 

with no hate there's no need for even a single nuke bombus....all we need is love, peace, companionship...

 

Ok, so you first then we'll follow, ok?

[iNow]

I am merely interpreting the facts in a certain way. You may disagree, and that's fine, but please say which bits you disagree with and give me a chance to change your mind.

That's fair. See below.

 

 

 

The companies couldn't give a damn who's in power.

This statement is false in a number of ways. First, "companies" are not organisms with feelings, but a grouping of people each with their own views and interpretations. Second, those people care about ways to make the highest profit at the lowest cost, hence the person in power is very much a part of their area of concern. If I were a "company" and there was someone in power who sought to restrict my ability to do my job to earn income, you can be sure I'd "give a damn who's in power."

 

 

 

Republican and Democrat administrations are the same, apart from some frills around the edges!

Would you like me to kill this point using detailed and specific examples in great numbers where there were serious differences, or would you like me to pivot back to the fact that each governmental employee is themselves a person despite the party line with which they associate?

 

 

The US is a state run by oligarchs, with the front of democracy so the oligarchs never get found out. Who do you think funds presidential campaigns!

It comes in various forms, and technology is changing past approaches.

 

I encourage a review of this link if you want to learn more, but also point your attention to the vast internet campaign being waged right now by Barack Obama which gives the small donations of the many an equal footing with the large donations of the few.

 

 

 

Why is it only rich people get to be President - or even get in the running? The 'land of opportunity' is a myth. The US is a land run by the rich for the rich.

I can appreciate the sentiment here, but you go wrong by asserting it as some fact. When the populace as a whole comes together and demands something, you can bet your shiney ass that they will make it happen. The rich can be seen as an inertia to change, I concede that, but enough power can still overcome those economic forces of friction. Grassroots actually has meaning here in US society, and I encourage you to include that into your perspective since it's such a powerful force and has so frequently succeeded in it's stated missions.

 

 

Russia pose no real threat to the US - certainly no more than the the EU does.

Is the EU currently engaged in imperialistic maneuvers, sending tanks and infantry into other countries? Is Russia working with us and supporting the same goals to the extent that the EU is? I'm going to posit no. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

 

 

Why is the US trying to pick a fight with Russia? A fight it can't ever win!

I didn't realize the US was doing this. Did we call Russia's mother fat? Did we give Russia a wedgey? What do you mean by "picking a fight?" What specific actions or words are you talking about?

 

Then, can you please explain what you mean by "win?" If you are approaching this as if "war has no winners," then of course you are correct. However, if you are approaching this as "the US can never accomplish their stated goals if they have Russia as an opponent to those goals," then I fear you are wrong (or, at least speculating with no real support of your position).

 

 

 

Anyway, the politicians are mostly as much kept ion the dark as the citizens.

Hmmm. This seems to contradict your earlier position that the government is all the same and out to do harm. Which is it?

 

 

This time, there may be no-one left to blame anyone...

That could very well be the case. I'm not a blind supporter of the US. I, too, am frustrated by countless actions (and countless lack of actions) performed. I'm just saying, you are speaking in absolutes, you are not supporting your stance with any facts, and the situation is not nearly as "black and white" as you portray.

 

Fair?