Author Topic: South Osetia under attack  (Read 117450 times)

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #540 on: August 12, 2008, 06:28:10 PM »
Kick Russia out of the G8

Boycott all Russian products

If that doesn't smarten em up, maybe its time to fling a few thermonuclear devices around.

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #541 on: August 12, 2008, 06:30:37 PM »
This would explain something, Stoney, and give credance to some of Georgia's claims. If the Russian occupation forces' found the bodies' of American black servicemen, that would be in line with Georgia's original statement that they were simply going after the Ossetians' shelling the Georgian border side. The Americans' would be there to oversee and evaluate the Georgians' on their op. Otherwise, I wouldn't see U.S. advisors' near there, because I doubt they would wish to get involved in regular full-scale warfare.

Well, I guarantee that the Russian pilots knew exactly where the U.S. Advisors are based, and made doubly sure that the effects of their ordnance had no chance of getting anywhere close to them.  Of course, EUCOM had those guys restricted to base some time ago when this looked like it was going downhill.

My point was that the "Major U.S. Ally" moniker has been thrown around quite a bit by the press and some of the posters here.  I think that is an exageration, and certainly overstates the DoD's mission in Georgia, which is simply to train the Georgian military in counter-insurgency operations.  In this case, specifically, Islamic extremists and pre-deployment training for Iraq, which is not at the heart of this particular matter.
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Stoney

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3482
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #542 on: August 12, 2008, 06:31:14 PM »
...maybe its time to fling a few thermonuclear devices around.

You can't be serious...
"Can we be incorrect at times, absolutely, but I do believe 15 years of experience does deserve a little more credence and respect than you have given from your very first post."

HiTech

Offline Elfie

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6143
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #543 on: August 12, 2008, 06:34:14 PM »
You can't be serious...

Maybe he just meant to like....play catch with them and stuff.... :uhoh



 :D
Corkyjr on country jumping:
In the end you should be thankful for those players like us who switch to try and help keep things even because our willingness to do so, helps a more selfish, I want it my way player, get to fly his latewar uber ride.

Offline Charon

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 3705
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #544 on: August 12, 2008, 06:50:57 PM »
Quote
Its not Bushs fault we have stupidly convinced ourselves that Putin, or the Russians, are our friends. We did that on our own, or, with the help of our allies. George Bushs leadership has prevented another terror attack on our soil, along with the bravery of our troops, and those of our allies.

A reminder again, this is George Bush on Putin:
"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straight forward and trustworthy and we had a very good dialogue.

"I was able to get a sense of his soul.

"He's a man deeply committed to his country and the best interests of his country and I appreciate very much the frank dialogue and that's the beginning of a very constructive relationship," Mr Bush said.


LOL. Yeah, Bush is the man of the hour where a reemerging Putin Russia is concerned.

Quote
Putin doesnt have internal politics or public opinion that he has to worry about. He doesnt have a congress he has to answer to. He doesnt have allies he has to cater to. You can call Bush a neo-clod as much as you want but even that is an expression of personal political opinion that Putin would laugh at if a Russian said it about him. Putin is a Dictator, or as close to one as a sham Democracy can dream up…

"We" are the ones who have to grow up and start looking at the world as realists. This is an old game, with an old enemy, and if NATO doesnt unify and get its act together we might be handing off a real nightmare world to our kids. Its childish to revert to selfish, domestic, political name calling and silly to blame all the worlds ills on George Bush. Bush was right to act unilaterally after 9/11. If he hadnt we'd still be pokeing holes in the air at the UN debating society, "No doubt you'll see a lot of such hot air being blown around concerning Georgia". We simply cant let all our national security decisions be made by popular world vote. You probably notice theres a lot less world condemnation over this brutal attack on pitiful Georgia then there was when we invaded Iraq, despite having 100 x more provocation.

Did Georgia try and kill a former Russian President? Did Georgia violate UN resolutions dozens of times? Did Georgia start two major wars each time invading a neighboring country in surprise attacks? Do you remember the world community screeching when America went after Saddam, an event he could have prevented by simply allowing UN inspectors to do their jobs. And do you hear the thunderous silence now?

Bush had a free ride on all those areas you cite as not limiting Putin for the first 4 years of his presidency after 911. Congress and the media did little to oppose him. His allies supported him, his not-so-allies weren't powerful to do much against him. The result…

We have hemorrhaged money at home by his approving virtually every domestic pork ladened bill Congress placed in front of him. Continuing the Clinton legacy; virtually no oversight on the financial markets. In Iraq money has been blown with virtually no oversight of where it has gone or accountability. We have used up equipment to the point where recovery will be a serious budget issue in years to come.

For the war itself, the conduct of the post war operations in Iraq have been terribly mismanaged (the whole disbanding the Iraqi Army thing, as one example) even if you agree with the basic PNAC premise of the democracy domino effect (Wolfowitz, Pearl and Fifie, oh my) as leverage against Iran, the Saudis and Syria. Nope, no clod in the White House.

You seem to equate Iraq with Al Queda. Saddam was an butthole, but he was our very useful butthole for many years and after Gulf War I was easily contained. As much as his actions pissed us off he was a regional, Stalinist dictator in an area where our “friends” (Saudi Arabia, Nuclear Pakistan) are borderline stable, passively to actively support islamic terrorism and are one Ayatollah away from being the next Iran.

Now, I may be simple, but when I looked at the region I saw Saddam as an irritation, and the Saudis and Pakistanis and the Iranians under their new clod as the real areas of concern. Guess what, that hasn't changed, though our ability to deal with these real threats (and Islamic hotbeds in Asia, etc.) are diminishing each day. We don't have unlimited resources or unlimited capacity for action, and we have squandered both by eliminating an anti-Islamic Stalinist paper tiger dictator. Making things worse is our inability to comprehend 4th generation warfare in both the foreign and domestic dimensions which endangers any kind of successful exit strategy from Iraq.

We haven't hade another terrorist attack because the Al Qaeda network in the US was largely used up in 911 and hasn't been rebuilt -- yet. That was the opinion of Phillip Zilekow, who directed the 911 Commission. I asked him that specific question in 2005 at a dinner at University of Virginia where he was the guest speaker. He noted that it’s not all that easy to find ideological/suicidal men then train them to operate in a Western country then position them to attack a target. Little parallel to getting a local to strap on a bomb and go for a walk in the market.  

What exactly has bush done though to keep the terrorists at bay? The fight them "there vs here" concept is a farce, since the ones we fight there (in Iraq, at least) are not the same ones we will fight here. No border security today (interfere with his support of illegal workers) leaving open the possibility of an infiltration attack through Canada or Mexico. And our ports remain relatively unsecure (expensive technology). We are perhaps starting to focus more on human intel compared to the pentagon industrial complex friendly satellite solutions of the cold war, which is a start, but it certainly has not been a proactive move.

Quote
This is the hypocritical anti-US world we live in. A world allows China to host the Olympics despite its Government sponsored brutality.

As for China, I regard them as a military and economic enemy. Always have; nothing has changed. The current Commander-in-Clod, like Klinton before him, doesn't seem to be as concerned. China is "good for business." Don't think that we are not an active part of that "hypocritical world" on China. Our fracking trade deficit dollars are putting their new fleet of Kilo class diesels to sea along with the rest of their military build up for the day they figure they can hold off the US Pacific Fleet long enough to make the hop to Taiwan. Of course, that supposes we would resist the move in the first place given our economic bondage to the PRC.

Quote
But do call Bush a "Neo-clod". If it makes you feel better then go ahead and let fly.

I've called bush a neo-clod or equivalent since he naively bought into the PNAC concept that Iraq would remain secular and become our democratic best regional buddy and base of operations once we removed Saddam from power. That was his show, 100 percent, and it illustrated absolutely no cultural understanding of the tribal mentality in the region, conflicting religious and cultural forces and conflicting geopolitical undercurrents that required a Saddam Hussein for the "state" of Iraq to exist in the first place.

You seem to think I'm some generic "bush hater." Unlike you, I see Bush and his Ilk as part of the problem, not as some sort of solution. Bush, Obama, McCain, Clinton… Congress as well -- A broken system. I’m a libertarian-leaning Goldwater style conservative, so calling bush a “neo-clod” while an accurate assessment IMO does not make me feel better. Hard to feel better when the American people support two political façade parties that both are far from my foreign, domestic or fiscal policy views.

Charon
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 07:03:09 PM by Charon »

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #545 on: August 12, 2008, 06:51:06 PM »
Putin doesnt have internal politics or public opinion that he has to worry about. He doesnt have a congress he has to answer to. He doesnt have allies he has to cater to. You can call Bush a neo-clod as much as you want but even that is an expression of personal political opinion that Putin would laugh at if a Russian said it about him. Putin is a Dictator, or as close to one as a sham Democracy can dream up.

Inasmuch as what you've said about Putin is true, I would point out that in Russia, He's pretty popular.

Its not Bushs fault we have stupidly convinced ourselves that Putin, or the Russians, are our friends. We did that on our own, or, with the help of our allies. George Bushs leadership has prevented another terror attack on our soil, along with the bravery of our troops, and those of our allies.

We've always extended our hand to our former enemies. Japan, Germany, even letting our businesses' trade in Vietnam. Hell, after WWI we were the country that tried to change the treaty of Versailles so that it wasn't so ruinous to Germany.

And whether or not GWB's actions have prevented another 9/11, or simply given someone, somewhere, incentive to stage something more ruinous, only time will tell.


"We" are the ones who have to grow up and start looking at the world as realists. This is an old game, with an old enemy, and if NATO doesnt unify and get its act together we might be handing off a real nightmare world to our kids. Its childish to revert to selfish, domestic, political name calling and silly to blame all the worlds ills on George Bush. Bush was right to act unilaterally after 9/11. If he hadnt we'd still be pokeing holes in the air at the UN debating society, "No doubt you'll see a lot of such hot air being blown around concerning Georgia". We simply cant let all our national security decisions be made by popular world vote. You probably notice theres a lot less world condemnation over this brutal attack on pitiful Georgia then there was when we invaded Iraq, despite having 100 x more provocation.

We could easily derail this thread if we start in about the right/wrong of Iraq. I would counter this argument right here in this thread by saying that our inaction in Georgia could possibly be because of our middle-eastern mis-adventures. If we had to let Afghanistan and the Taliban slide while we went to Iraq, due to shortages' of men and material, then It's an indicator that we did not have many options' on the table militarily to deal with the Russian's. This whole thing is a result of having too many "sticks in the fire." One could tell that Bush definetely toned his speech on TV differently than he did when discussing going into Iraq, and it was possibly influenced by what he was hearing both from the Joint Chiefs, and our intelligence community. I personally was suprised he came out so softly. I think he was looking at the cards' in his hand, and he didn't like what he saw.

Did Georgia try and kill a former Russian President? Did Georgia violate UN resolutions dozens of times? Did Georgia start two major wars each time invading a neighboring country in surprise attacks? Do you remember the world community screeching when America went after Saddam, an event he could have prevented by simply allowing UN inspectors to do their jobs. And do you hear the thunderous silence now?

Again, we could debate this until it becomes' a full-fledged hijack. You know that for everything you listed, there is a debate on the right/wrong of each one, and that we ourselves' had a hand in some of those happenings.

This is the hypocritical anti-US world we live in. A world allows China to host the Olympics despite its Government sponsored brutality.

But do call Bush a "Neo-clod". If it makes you feel better then go ahead and let fly.

The U.S. does massive amounts of business with China, with a massive trade deficit...Even doing so at the expense of jobs for American workers. I agree with you in this sense, Rich. They are hanging us with our own rope. But I would say the worlds' letting the Chinese have an Olympics not because every other nation is hypocritical, but because it basically has the U.S.A's stamp of approval.

It doesn't make me personally feel any better or worse, but I can think of few things' that more aptly describe our current president.

« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 06:56:40 PM by FrodeMk3 »

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #546 on: August 12, 2008, 07:03:56 PM »
Quote
You seem to think I'm some generic "bush hater." Unlike you, I see Bush and his Ilk as part of the problem, not as some sort of solution. Bush, Obama, McCain, Clinton… Congress as well -- A broken system. I’m a libertarian-leaning Goldwater style conservative, so calling bush a “neo-clod” while an accurate assessment IMO does not make me feel better. Hard to feel better when the American people support two political façade parties that both are far from my foreign, domestic or fiscal policy views.

Charon

I might be mistaken, Charon, but I believe you might possibly be a Paleoconservative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paleoconservative

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #547 on: August 12, 2008, 07:06:58 PM »
If you guys' want to see what some russians' (other than Boroda) are saying about this, have a look here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/12/world/europe/12MoscowBureau.html?pagewanted=1&_r=1

Offline LePaul

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7988
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #548 on: August 12, 2008, 07:43:43 PM »
You can't be serious...

Actually I was, just to rev up Boroda and his communist boyfriends

Offline ghi

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2669
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #549 on: August 12, 2008, 07:54:28 PM »
If Putin sees that the West is weak and allows Georgia to be trampled, then he likely will not hesitate to block additional Western efforts to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.One thing we should pretty much count on is that Moscow right now is casting an eye toward Iran, the most direct route to restoring its influence in Central Asia and Middle East. An Iranian-Russian alliance, would be an Euro- Israeli-American nightmare, and  headache for the global economy, Russia sitting on Eurasian oil exports and Iran on the Strait of Hormuz  .


Offline Captain Virgil Hilts

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 6134
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #550 on: August 12, 2008, 08:02:13 PM »
If Putin sees that the West is weak and allows Georgia to be trampled, then he likely will not hesitate to block additional Western efforts to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions.One thing we should pretty much count on is that Moscow right now is casting an eye toward Iran, the most direct route to restoring its influence in Central Asia and Middle East. An Iranian-Russian alliance, would be an Euro- Israeli-American nightmare, and  headache for the global economy, Russia sitting on Eurasian oil exports and Iran on the Strait of Hormuz  .



Smart man.
"I haven't seen Berlin yet, from the ground or the air, and I plan on doing both, BEFORE the war is over."

SaVaGe


Offline bongaroo

  • Silver Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 1822
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #551 on: August 12, 2008, 08:10:30 PM »
Crap, I don't even remember what I typed.  Sorry if anyone took it the wrong way.
Callsign: Bongaroo
Formerly: 420ace


Offline Rich46yo

  • Platinum Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 7358
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #552 on: August 12, 2008, 08:25:40 PM »
I disagree Rich46yo. There's been much more condemnation of Russia than the US and Iraq. The free world has condemned Russia - nobody talked about throwing the US & UK out of the G8 as they are doing with russia. I think sometimes Americans are guilty of developing a silo mentality, and like to think the world is against them. I think there is more support than you realize.

Compare and contrast the French response in this for instance - they were willing to fly their president into a war zone to broker a peace deal.

We must be watching very different news sources then. Even here there are Europeans commisurating with the Russians.

There, I just read thru the BBC webpage. I dont see any condemnation. The only one Ive seen is from Bush.

"Fly their President into the war zone to broker a peace deal"? You call that condemnation? :lol

We may live in silos but there is somthing about a tyrant beating down a fledgling Democracy that roils our guts. Why else would we have paid so much of the bill for west Europes freedom for decades and sent our sons and daughters there? Course "our" silos are filled with good reasons for the Russians not to attack NATO. So I guess "figuratively" we do live in them.I will only say to this that we have no legal obligation to send troops to defend Georgia. There is no treaty or even an agreement. This Georgian President overplayed his hand and last I checked the place wasnt even in our Hemisphere nor is American security threatened. This is a European problem so if action is to follow then only NATO can do so. Our so called "misadventures" are irrelevant. It has no bearing and anyone advocating unilateral cruise missile Diplomacy should march their kid down to the recruiters and sign them up first.
Quote
our inaction in Georgia could possibly be because of our middle-eastern mis-adventures.



Anyway, I have to get up early so good night all.
"flying the aircraft of the Red Star"

Offline FrodeMk3

  • Gold Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2481
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #553 on: August 12, 2008, 11:14:47 PM »
Quote
We may live in silos but there is somthing about a tyrant beating down a fledgling Democracy that roils our guts. Why else would we have paid so much of the bill for west Europes freedom for decades and sent our sons and daughters there? Course "our" silos are filled with good reasons for the Russians not to attack NATO. So I guess "figuratively" we do live in them.I will only say to this that we have no legal obligation to send troops to defend Georgia. There is no treaty or even an agreement. This Georgian President overplayed his hand and last I checked the place wasnt even in our Hemisphere nor is American security threatened. This is a European problem so if action is to follow then only NATO can do so. Our so called "misadventures" are irrelevant. It has no bearing and anyone advocating unilateral cruise missile Diplomacy should march their kid down to the recruiters and sign them up first.
Quote
our inaction in Georgia could possibly be because of our middle-eastern mis-adventures.



Anyway, I have to get up early so good night all.

Then why the comparison of Georgia and Iraq in your previous post? If anything is more under dispute as lying about the WMD's in Iraq to use as an issue to send American troops' there, I don't know what is. Hell, even our ethical reasons' were weak; Whereas, our ethical reasons' for supporting Georgia, who committed 2,000 troops to OUR cause, should be plain as day. By your reasoning, Giving Great Britain support and help during the early days' of WWII was wrong. We didn't have any kind of pact or treaty with the UK prior to the 2nd World war. They were simply our friends' and allies. JUST LIKE THE GEORGIANS.

And you know...even if you consider it a European problem, thus NATO's...We are still a NATO member as well.
« Last Edit: August 12, 2008, 11:49:23 PM by FrodeMk3 »

Offline Angus

  • Plutonium Member
  • *******
  • Posts: 10057
Re: South Osetia under attack
« Reply #554 on: August 13, 2008, 04:03:58 AM »
Actually the support to Britain wasn't that much. The USA would not sell weapons to a warring nation. When that was changed, the Germans also technically had an open shop....
It was very interesting to carry out the flight trials at Rechlin with the Spitfire and the Hurricane. Both types are very simple to fly compared to our aircraft, and childishly easy to take-off and land. (Werner Mölders)