Russian Tanks Enter S. Ossetia (Thread Separated)

[Pangloss]

Russia pose no real threat to the US

 

Earlier today the Russian President directly threatened the US with military action.

 

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gAa5fmFrSvKn0--5w11Uz2FRMpJAD92Q53VO0

 

Medvedev says that the deployment of an anti-missile system close to Russian borders "will of course create additional tensions."

 

"We will have to react somehow, to react, of course, in a military way," Medvedev was quoted as saying Tuesday by the RIA-Novosti news agency.

 

They did the same thing a week ago.

 

I happen to not agree with US policy here, but there's a huge difference between aiming a gun and pulling a trigger. The US is arguably aiming a gun (though it is ONLY a defensive weapon and cannot be used in offensive attack in any way). Russia is talking about actually pulling a trigger in response.

 

"These missiles are close to our borders and constitute a threat to us," Mr Medvedev told Al-Jazeera television. "This will create additional tension and we will have to respond to it in some way, naturally using military means."

 

Yes that's right, the actual president of Russia just said that he would respond to increasing tension with a military assault. That's what he actually said.

[bombus]

Earlier today the Russian President directly threatened the US with military action.

 

Well of course they have now! The point is that the USA has MADE Russia into an enemy by constantly provoking them! This is an enemy of the US govt's making - like all its goddam enemies! Every single one! The US can't survive without enemies. The US is a war economy.

 

I happen to not agree with US policy here, but there's a huge difference between aiming a gun and pulling a trigger. The US is arguably aiming a gun (though it is ONLY a defensive weapon and cannot be used in offensive attack in any way). Russia is talking about actually pulling a trigger in response.

 

The MAD scenario works. Any threat to this destablizes the balance and is tantamount to a threat. Can you not see that? Perhaps you'd be happy if Russia placed a few 'defensive weapons' in Cuba or Mexico?

 

Yes that's right, the actual president of Russia just said that he would respond to increasing tension with a military assault. That's what he actually said.

 

Oh, so you can speak Russian can you? Or has he started speaking in English? I have seen such an Orwellian response to the Georgian incident I would believe things have been lost in translation. Anyway, your link is from Associated Press for God's sake! Might as well be Fox or CNN - hardly reliable sources!!

 

However, Russia did warn the USA that if it tried to stop them rescuing S. Ossetia it would respond with tactical nukes - which is fair enough as Russia has not the technical weapons of the US.

[DrP]

There is a lesson to be learned from all of this:

 

Wise man say - "Never flick a sleeping lion in the nads with a wet towel"

[bombus]

 

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."

 

Exactly my point - well done! Companies are mindless monsters that will do everything for the great God Profit. Any US government is at their mercy.

 

 

 

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?

 

Ho ho ho. Only a US citizen could say that! Frills around the edges my friend! How many Communist, Socialist, or Green Senators/Representatives do you have? How many Socialist parties do you have in the USA with any chance of getting into power? Frills around the edges! Less real choice that Communist China.

 

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.

 

Aww c'mon! Don't pretend you don't know the truth!

 

Good on Obama, though, lets hope he succeeds.

 

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.

 

Go to the poor areas in Detroit and eat your words. Third world conditions my friend in the richest county in the world. Shameful. Don't see many people complaining though.

 

 

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.

 

Yes, hand in hand with the US (Iraq, Afghanistan, and our secret services are effectively merged). Russia asked to join NATO and the EU but were refused.

 

 

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?

 

Far worse. The US went back on deals - Resolutions in fact, agreed by Bush Senior and Gorbachev. Then meddled in all the former Warsaw pact countries. Really my friend, you could find all this out easily yourself.

 

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).

 

Nuclear war has no winners, and that is indeed where it ends.

 

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?

 

No it doesn't. It is the system that does the work - the mindless monsters remember?

 

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?

 

Fair enough

Edited August 26, 2008 by bombus

[CDarwin]

In the mean time... Russia has recognized the independence of S. Ossetia and Abkazhia and the West is condemning it.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7583164.stm

 

I think NATO is just dead wrong on this one. This is the only thing that could possibly stabilize the Caucuses now. The status quo, and all trust between Georgia and the break-away republics, is totally dead now. NATO and Georgia are just blocking progress by thinking that S. Ossetia and Abkazhia will now quietly return to the unofficial-semi-autonomy-under-threat-of-arms they won in the 90s. The most valid criticism is that the Russians might have done it too soon, but it needed to be done eventually (yet again, Russia botches a move, that could have been presented as a necessary and noble positive, by appearing imperialistic).

 

Just on an interesting note, both the Russian Duma and the Federation Council voted unanimously in support of this recognition of independence. That includes parties other than United Russia, most prominently the Communists, which are its strongest rival. I think that shows some of the unity of resolve in Russia over this issue. This isn't, for Russians, just Putin's Machiavellianism. Russians are bitter over Kosavo, they're bitter over the eastward spread of NATO, they're bitter over their treatment in history and probably a thousand other little slights, and pro-Russian minorities in the Caucuses seem to have taken on a special national purpose. It's sort of a mix of "Here we draw the line against the West" with "We need all the friends we can get down there" with "Here, at least, we are loved, we must stand by them." Whether Putin and Mendvedev feel the same way or are just using the sentiment for their own gains, who can say?

Edited August 26, 2008 by CDarwin

[Pangloss]

Well of course they have now! The point is that the USA has MADE Russia into an enemy by constantly provoking them! This is an enemy of the US govt's making - like all its goddam enemies! Every single one! The US can't survive without enemies. The US is a war economy.

 

Ah, so it's okay to attack another country if you were provoked into doing it. But not the US, they're not allowed to do that. Anybody else, that's okay.

 

Bombus have you ever heard of the phrase "two wrongs don't make a right"? Just curious.

 

Any threat to this destablizes the balance and is tantamount to a threat. Can you not see that? Perhaps you'd be happy if Russia placed a few 'defensive weapons' in Cuba or Mexico?

 

On the contrary, I told you I don't approve of the US's position on this issue. But you're saying it's okay for Russia to take military action instead of continuing diplomacy. That's what you're advocating here. Are you sure that's the position you want to take?

 

 

Oh, so you can speak Russian can you? Or has he started speaking in English? I have seen such an Orwellian response to the Georgian incident I would believe things have been lost in translation. Anyway, your link is from Associated Press for God's sake! Might as well be Fox or CNN - hardly reliable sources!!

 

Wow. Guys I hate to say it, but I'm starting to get to the point where I think stuff like this may need to be pushed to Pseudoscience and Speculations instead of Politics. I really see this board as an avenue for serious political discussion, not wacky illuminati stuff.

 

 

However, Russia did warn the USA that if it tried to stop them rescuing S. Ossetia it would respond with tactical nukes - which is fair enough as Russia has not the technical weapons of the US.

 

Wow again. You just gave your support for Russia dropping atomic bombs. Just... wow.

[Sisyphus]

*steps delicately over crazy rants*

 

The more I think this whole mess, the more unsettling it is, because nobody is really wrong. Sure, pretty much all parties have behaved badly, and unnecessarily made a bad situation worse. But all parties also have legitimate - and irreconcilable - claims. Georgia is trying to maintain its territorial sovereignty, a basic duty of the nation state. The breakaway regions are asserting their self-determination, a core democratic principle. And Russia is just protecting its own citizens!

 

This, combined with fairly indefensible conduct by both Russia and Georgia, makes it impossible to support one side or the other without being hypocritical. And sure enough, there are plenty of double standards being applied. It strikes me that the situation in South Ossetia and Georgia is quite similar to the situation in Kosovo and Serbia, and yet the "sides" are almost exactly reversed. How can either Russia or the United States even pretend to ideologically reconcile their respective positions? For that matter, how do we approach separatist factions all over the world? Unevenly. Kosovo is ok, Palestine is ok, even Quebec is ok if they decide to leave Canada. South Ossetia, Kurdistan, and Northern Cyprus are apparently not. For that matter, the United States of America is ok, but the Confederate States of America is not.

 

I guess that's inevitable, though. Either idealogical position, self-determination or territorial sovereignty, becomes absurd if taken to its logical extreme. On the one hand, I could secede my apartment from the United States, stop paying taxes, ignore all laws, and if the police came I could ask for protection from the UN. On the other extreme, the whole world could still technically be divided between Spain and Portugal.

[Pangloss]

That's exactly right, IMO. One cannot just dump all this at America's doorstep (or anybody else's). International politics is complex.

 

Interesting comparison between your apartment and Spain & Portugal.

[DrP]

"Never flick a sleeping lion in the nads with a wet towel"

 

Just to clarify my position on this, as I see it - Russia is the Lion, Georgia the wet towel and South Ossetia are the testicular appendages.

[ParanoiA]

Just to clarify my position on this, as I see it - Russia is the Lion, Georgia the wet towel and South Ossetia are the testicular appendages.

 

Georgia is doing what Russia, America, or any other nation would do when a segment of their territory declares independence - they are enforcing their union. Russia doesn't have a legitimate territorial excuse for invading Georgia.

 

Now, you can also argue that Georgia doesn't have any right to stop S Ossetia from separating, perfectly fair. And still, Russia doesn't have a legitimate territorial excuse for invading Georgia.

 

The only way Russia "worms" itself into a plausible excuse to flex its muscle and punish Georgia, for trying to be sovereign and independent of Russia, is to appeal to their citizenry in South Ossetia.

 

I cannot buy this sleeping lion analogy as it seems to presuppose that Georgia has no right to enforce its union, and assumes Russia automagically has some kind of natural right to respond to some other nation's intra-state conflict.

 

I guess that's inevitable, though. Either idealogical position, self-determination or territorial sovereignty, becomes absurd if taken to its logical extreme. On the one hand, I could secede my apartment from the United States, stop paying taxes, ignore all laws, and if the police came I could ask for protection from the UN. On the other extreme, the whole world could still technically be divided between Spain and Portugal.

 

See that's still holding me up too. I keep waiting for this epiphany to suddenly give me the answer to this philosophical dilemma. You're absolutely right, taken to their logical extremes ends with absurdity. I think Russia's action is on shakier ground that Georgia and the break away regions, but the protection of their citizenry is at least valid. What a mess.

Edited August 28, 2008 by ParanoiA

[DrP]

It is very complex and I don't think it is as simple as to say that Russia are completely wrong. We've helped other European countries claim independance in the past with a military presence - this is similar - someone has to make the descision and as Russia are the major player in that area, and S.Ossetia is right on their border - I'd say that it would be their descision and not ours. Just as if there were problems in mexico or peru - it would be up to the states to sort out. Just as when there were problems in Ireland - the Brits sorted it out.

 

Being fair - it's NOT my area of expertise, but this is how I feel about it - it's just my 2 cents.

 

Regards,

 

P.

[bombus]

That's exactly right, IMO. One cannot just dump all this at America's doorstep (or anybody else's). International politics is complex. Interesting comparison between your apartment and Spain & Portugal.

 

I disagree. The US has NATO and the EU, and most of the West, by the cahones (is that how one spells it?). It is the US that has been meddling and provoking Russia, with the EU cheering on from the sidelines.

[Pangloss]

I disagree. The US has NATO and the EU, and most of the West, by the cahones (is that how one spells it?). It is the US that has been meddling and provoking Russia, with the EU cheering on from the sidelines.

 

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's a shame you can't seem to put up any evidence of that, and can only offer us stereotypical anti-western catechism.

 

Meanwhile Russia's claim that genocide was occurring in South Ossetia has been disputed by the United Nations.

 

No mass atrocities were occurring, or were likely to occur, in Georgia's breakaway enclave of South Ossetia on the night of Aug. 7-8 when Russia invaded. Later reports by journalists indicated Georgian forces had been attacked first by Russian-backed insurgents. A few hundred civilians on both sides were killed in the crossfire and bombardments.

 

While tragic, the killings hardly rise to the level of genocide. And Russia had other means to calm or prevent the situation.

 

The fact that Russia didn't first use diplomacy or didn't restrict its forces to South Ossetia only reinforces reports that Moscow instigated the conflict in order to send a message. It really wanted the West to acknowledge its territorial imperium and its ability to command the region's oil reserves.

 

But I guess the UN is just a tool of those American corporations, right? Odd how UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before that war, though. You'd think if they were in the corporations' pockets they would have promised WMDs left and right, and then been just as surprised as the Bush administration when they weren't found.

[Mr Skeptic]

On the issue of seceding: wouldn't there be some land ownership problems with seceding? The government has a partial ownership of the land, even if it is owned by someone. They maintain the right to tax it, and can take back the land if there is no heir, or the taxes are unpaid, or take the land in exchange for some compensation if there is a national interest in doing so. Obviously, you wouldn't like it if someone who was renting land from you declared himself the owner of it -- likewise, seceding will take away rights to the land from the government, and they won't like that. Therefore, it seems to me that the proper thing to do when seceding is to buy the land from the original government.

[DrP]

How about an election for the people of S.Ossetia then? I wonder what result that would throw up?

[CDarwin]

How about an election for the people of S.Ossetia then? I wonder what result that would throw up?

 

They already did it in 2006. The vote was over 90% for independence, but some of the region's ethnic Georgians were probably discouraged from voting. Not that there are many of them left there now, we're beginning to see.

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6140448.stm

Edited August 28, 2008 by CDarwin

[bombus]

There is a lesson to be learned from all of this:

 

Wise man say - "Never flick a sleeping lion in the nads with a wet towel"

 

Indeed! Wise words my friend, wise words.

 

Well you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but it's a shame you can't seem to put up any evidence of that, and can only offer us stereotypical anti-western catechism.

 

We are using the same evidence, just my interpretation of it makes sense.

 

Meanwhile Russia's claim that genocide was occurring in South Ossetia has been disputed by the United Nations.

 

But I guess the UN is just a tool of those American corporations, right? Odd how UN inspectors didn't find any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq before that war, though. You'd think if they were in the corporations' pockets they would have promised WMDs left and right, and then been just as surprised as the Bush administration when they weren't found.

 

Actually it was Russia that revised the figures - down to around 160 people. However, that's 160 innocent civilians dead from an attack from Georgia. How would the US respond if Mexico bombed and killed 160 US citizens in Texas? Would the US just say 'I say, that's a little rum', or go in and stop it?

 

It is very complex and I don't think it is as simple as to say that Russia are completely wrong. We've helped other European countries claim independance in the past with a military presence - this is similar - someone has to make the descision and as Russia are the major player in that area, and S.Ossetia is right on their border - I'd say that it would be their descision and not ours. Just as if there were problems in mexico or peru - it would be up to the states to sort out. Just as when there were problems in Ireland - the Brits sorted it out.

 

Being fair - it's NOT my area of expertise, but this is how I feel about it - it's just my 2 cents.

 

Regards,

 

P.

 

And worth every cent. I applaud your ability to question recieved opinion.

 

On the issue of seceding: wouldn't there be some land ownership problems with seceding? The government has a partial ownership of the land, even if it is owned by someone. They maintain the right to tax it, and can take back the land if there is no heir, or the taxes are unpaid, or take the land in exchange for some compensation if there is a national interest in doing so. Obviously, you wouldn't like it if someone who was renting land from you declared himself the owner of it -- likewise, seceding will take away rights to the land from the government, and they won't like that. Therefore, it seems to me that the proper thing to do when seceding is to buy the land from the original government.

 

How much would the US owe Great Britain?

Edited August 28, 2008 by bombus
multiple post merged

[Pangloss]

However, that's 160 innocent civilians dead from an attack from Georgia. How would the US respond if Mexico bombed and killed 160 US citizens in Texas? Would the US just say 'I say, that's a little rum', or go in and stop it?

 

This is a false analogy, because South Ossetia isn't part of Russia. It's either independent, or part of Georgia, depending on whom you ask.

 

A more apt analogy would be for you to ask me how I would feel if Mexico bombed and killed 160 US citizens who were visiting Venezuela following a long-standing dispute between Mexico and Venezuela over control of certain bordering oil fields, and assuming for the sake of argument that Venezuela had to ship its oil through Mexico.

[CDarwin]

This is a false analogy, because South Ossetia isn't part of Russia. It's either independent, or part of Georgia, depending on whom you ask.

 

A more apt analogy would be for you to ask me how I would feel if Mexico bombed and killed 160 US citizens who were visiting Venezuela following a long-standing dispute between Mexico and Venezuela over control of certain bordering oil fields, and assuming for the sake of argument that Venezuela had to ship its oil through Mexico.

 

That would work better if Venezuela was a US ally and if Mexico not only bombed, but actually invaded and tried to seize control of it. You could compare it, I suppose, to China invading Tibet after it tried to succeed and India intervening. Of course the relative power of the nations involved in that example doesn't quite work, but I think the response in the West would pretty clearly be different.

[ParanoiA]

On the issue of seceding: wouldn't there be some land ownership problems with seceding? The government has a partial ownership of the land, even if it is owned by someone. They maintain the right to tax it, and can take back the land if there is no heir, or the taxes are unpaid, or take the land in exchange for some compensation if there is a national interest in doing so. Obviously, you wouldn't like it if someone who was renting land from you declared himself the owner of it -- likewise, seceding will take away rights to the land from the government, and they won't like that. Therefore, it seems to me that the proper thing to do when seceding is to buy the land from the original government.

 

Yeah, I was wondering a bit on the same lines. That perhaps a happy medium is that a state has a natural right to secede with respect and obligatory dues to its "union" or whatever. So, for instance, if your state was invested with military bases and equipment by the federal government as a strategic move, but now you want to secede. Our union deserves the respect and obligation by your state to stay in the union long enough for us to readjust and maneuver our resources in lieu of your departure. After all, we depended on your pact with us when we deployed those resources that your state has enjoyed and likely profited from.

 

Hell, outright theft could be argued if you're not compensating the "central" government for the infrastructure they've provided your state. Granted, in theory, I guess your state helped provide the taxes for it - but taxes are not apportioned evenly, nor is the infrastructure, so realistically other states may have paid the bulk - or I suppose the other way around as well.

[bombus]

This is a false analogy, because South Ossetia isn't part of Russia. It's either independent, or part of Georgia, depending on whom you ask.

 

A more apt analogy would be for you to ask me how I would feel if Mexico bombed and killed 160 US citizens who were visiting Venezuela following a long-standing dispute between Mexico and Venezuela over control of certain bordering oil fields, and assuming for the sake of argument that Venezuela had to ship its oil through Mexico.

 

Whatever. The US would step in to prevent US deaths.

 

How many would have died had the Russians not intervened?

[Pangloss]

How many would have died had the Russians not intervened?

 

No evidence has emerged that genocide (or any kind of mass murder) was taking place. Are you suggesting that it's better to kill the other guy than to wait and see if he kills you? This is your idea of sound foreign policy?

 

Er, what is it you dislike about American foreign policy again? I could have sworn it was the idea of military action over diplomacy, which seems to be what you are advocating here.

[ecoli]

Whatever. The US would step in to prevent US deaths.

 

How many would have died had the Russians not intervened?

 

Hard to say, because it seems as if there was wrong-doing on both sides (or neither side?)

 

In general, my gut reaction is that if a people want to cede a particular territory, its generally in the interest of peace to let them do so, as long as there is a mechanism for non-separatists to have their rights preserved.

 

One thing I think is for certain, is that the US has no business picking sides in this matter. Geographically, we're no were near the region, and its only serving to increase tensions with Russia.

 

I seriously think we're heading into Cold War II with Russia if we're not careful.

[bombus]

No evidence has emerged that genocide (or any kind of mass murder) was taking place. Are you suggesting that it's better to kill the other guy than to wait and see if he kills you? This is your idea of sound foreign policy?

 

That's US foreign policy.

 

Er, what is it you dislike about American foreign policy again? I could have sworn it was the idea of military action over diplomacy, which seems to be what you are advocating here.

 

Diplomacy is best of course, but once the enemy starts killing your people it's usually too late for that! US foreign policy starts the problems in the first place - that's what I have against it.

Edited September 10, 2008 by Pangloss
fixed quote tag

[Sisyphus]

Diplomacy is best of course, but once the enemy starts killing your people it's usually too late for that! US foreign policy starts the problems in the first place - that's what I have against it.

 

Huh? How is this the fault of the United States? What are you talking about?

Edited September 10, 2008 by Pangloss
fixed quote tag