LOL, further support? What planet are you from? They don't need to "round up further support", the entire world already supports Georgia and condemns Russia, the entire fucking planet. The only country that came out in support of Russia was Cuba. Fidel Castro and a few anti-american forum idiots are the only people on the planet who side with Putin's Russia and defend its imperial ambitions. Then again those are the same people who support Ahmadinejad's nuclear program so I guess they've got something in their brain that's incurable.
Russa Invades Georgia - Full Scale Invasion
- Thread starter THE-BEAKER
- Start date
I guess you've completely misunderstood me.
Question 1: Who attacked first?
Answer to question 1: Georgia.
Russia is backing off. They were stabilizing the region, and it reminds me of Serbia and Kosovo when we did the same thing.
And it doesn't appear anti-american to say these things. When you start speaking about race and being a Jew it doesn't get to the point that Georgia had attacked first. A story written by our own Bloomberg.com states that's how it started. I'd have to go with Bloomberg on this unless someone on the ground says otherwise. I doubt anyone reading this is from Georgia.
Yes, it seems the european press is getting more nuanced now after the PR campaign run by the georgian president has been digested. Luckily Germany and France were hesitant to Georgia being allowed into NATO, while having the latent conflicts and democratic "issues" still unresolved.
The georgian president during the conflict seemed pretty smug, and not at all worried about the development and smirking while mentioning the "reasons" behind the conflict - further indicating that it was orchestrated. His arguments about russians being "prepared" because of their fast advance was feeble at best - since like I mentioned in another thread - it's well known that the russians have blazingly fast troop movements and agility compared to NATO, for anyone with some knowledge of military defense and intelligence. Medwedew handled himself pretty good during his press contact, and obviously is not just a marionette like most of the press like to present him, however there is no doubt that Putin has a strong role in the governing of Russia.
The georgian president during the conflict seemed pretty smug, and not at all worried about the development and smirking while mentioning the "reasons" behind the conflict - further indicating that it was orchestrated. His arguments about russians being "prepared" because of their fast advance was feeble at best - since like I mentioned in another thread - it's well known that the russians have blazingly fast troop movements and agility compared to NATO, for anyone with some knowledge of military defense and intelligence. Medwedew handled himself pretty good during his press contact, and obviously is not just a marionette like most of the press like to present him, however there is no doubt that Putin has a strong role in the governing of Russia.
I guess you've completely misunderstood me.
Actually I was not talking about you in my previous post, I had a few other posters in mind and while I kind of disagree with you on the conflict I did find your posts intelligent and well thought out.
Question 1: Who attacked first?
Answer to question 1: Georgia.
Georgia attacked Georgia (within its internationally recognized borders). Russia attacked Georgia within internationally recognized Georgian borders. These acts are usually called illegal invasion.
Russia is backing off. They were stabilizing the region, and it reminds me of Serbia and Kosovo when we did the same thing.
Frankly it reminds me of Chechnya.
And it doesn't appear anti-american to say these things.
Of course not but there are quite a few posters here whose position on all issues is absolutely predictable - they wait to see what side the US takes and take the opposite side.
When you start speaking about race and being a Jew
It was not me who started speaking about jews, a couple of idiots here have managed to blame Israel for this war. Not that it's surprising as the only thing they do in their empty lives is look for zionists under the bed and "expose" jewish conspiracies on a daily basis but that was the point I was addressing.
Georgia had attacked first.
This is not in dispute, the issue is whether Russia had any right to get involved in a foreign conflict and whether it has any legitimate right to encourage separatism in other countries while brutally crushing separatist movements within their own borders.
Actually you're not exactly right, here is the data on the six day war (1967):
Israel: 264,000 (incl. 214,000 reserve troops) 300 combat aircraft 800 tanks
Arabs: Egypt: 240,000 Syria, Jordan, and Iraq:307,000 957 combat aircraft 2,504 tanks
Casualties and losses
Israel: 800 killed, 2,563 wounded, 15 prisoners, 46 aircraft lost
Egypt- 11,500 killed and 20,000 wounded, Jordan- 700 killed and 2,500 wounded, Syria- 2,500 killed and 5,000 wounded, Iraq- 10 killed and 30 wounded
Total number- 21,000 killed, 45,000 wounded,
6,000 prisoners
over 400 aircraft destroyed
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Day_War
Oh and btw, the US did not start its aid program until 6-7 years later, all major Israeli victories were not due to the US. And these victories are the reason why Israeli military advisers are in high demand all over the world.
a_person,
I think the Israeli press managed pretty well to give some insight of Israeli involvement in the georgian conflict. It was funny when both the russian foreign ministry and the georgian president just used the phrase "other nations" while hesitating.
Some nuances appearing on both Deutsche Welle and BBC, as well as other mainstream european news organizations - but no one have the balls to repeat what the Israeli press is boasting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555155.stm
The only press I can see that boasts about helping Georgia attack ethnic minorities and killing of russian soldiers is the israeli press - and that says a lot to me. Israel and Europe evidently have vastly different goals for the region, which is reflected in the media and public opinion being formed by it.
It is damaging for both Russia and Europe to have a destabilized region and higher tensions. It's favourable for the US, and NATO as an organization centered around US interests. Hesitation by Germany and France in several NATO decisions over the last few years have been very wise to say the least.
I think the Israeli press managed pretty well to give some insight of Israeli involvement in the georgian conflict. It was funny when both the russian foreign ministry and the georgian president just used the phrase "other nations" while hesitating.
Some nuances appearing on both Deutsche Welle and BBC, as well as other mainstream european news organizations - but no one have the balls to repeat what the Israeli press is boasting.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7555155.stm
The only press I can see that boasts about helping Georgia attack ethnic minorities and killing of russian soldiers is the israeli press - and that says a lot to me. Israel and Europe evidently have vastly different goals for the region, which is reflected in the media and public opinion being formed by it.
It is damaging for both Russia and Europe to have a destabilized region and higher tensions. It's favourable for the US, and NATO as an organization centered around US interests. Hesitation by Germany and France in several NATO decisions over the last few years have been very wise to say the least.
Will anti-US camp condemn Russia?
IN 2003, about 100,000 Irish people, and many millions more around the world, marched in protest at what they saw as the violation by the United States of the sovereignty of an independent country. No matter that the leader of this particular nation was a sociopathic dictator, a man who believed even the most depraved acts justified if they served his purpose...The flames of indignation in this country were fanned to a great extent by the various anti-war organisations, and a number of their spokespersons briefly became household names.
...
Given the fact, therefore, that such organisations have proved themselves to be so commendably anti-war (notwithstanding their silence regarding China's support of the genocidal regime in Khartoum), I look forward to their vociferous condemnation of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
I anticipate that the Irish people will marshal in support of Georgia's independence, in much the same way they did for Iraq. I look forward to participating in the mass marches that the anti-war organisations will surely organise against Russia's truculence. I also look forward to the anti-war protesters monopolising the airwaves, as they did in 2003, to denounce the Kremlin's belligerence towards Tblisi.
I have no doubt that all of the above will occur, and that Russia's actions will be roundly condemned. I have checked the websites of the most prominent Irish protest groups, and while there is nothing whatsoever on the illegal Russian invasion of Georgian territory, I assume this will be quickly remedied.
Excuse me, though, if I don't hold my breath. Anti-war in this country and in many across the world, often seems merely a euphemism for anti-Americanism.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/will-antius-camp-condemn-russia-1451551.html
IN 2003, about 100,000 Irish people, and many millions more around the world, marched in protest at what they saw as the violation by the United States of the sovereignty of an independent country. No matter that the leader of this particular nation was a sociopathic dictator, a man who believed even the most depraved acts justified if they served his purpose...The flames of indignation in this country were fanned to a great extent by the various anti-war organisations, and a number of their spokespersons briefly became household names.
...
Given the fact, therefore, that such organisations have proved themselves to be so commendably anti-war (notwithstanding their silence regarding China's support of the genocidal regime in Khartoum), I look forward to their vociferous condemnation of the Russian invasion of Georgia.
I anticipate that the Irish people will marshal in support of Georgia's independence, in much the same way they did for Iraq. I look forward to participating in the mass marches that the anti-war organisations will surely organise against Russia's truculence. I also look forward to the anti-war protesters monopolising the airwaves, as they did in 2003, to denounce the Kremlin's belligerence towards Tblisi.
I have no doubt that all of the above will occur, and that Russia's actions will be roundly condemned. I have checked the websites of the most prominent Irish protest groups, and while there is nothing whatsoever on the illegal Russian invasion of Georgian territory, I assume this will be quickly remedied.
Excuse me, though, if I don't hold my breath. Anti-war in this country and in many across the world, often seems merely a euphemism for anti-Americanism.
http://www.independent.ie/opinion/letters/will-antius-camp-condemn-russia-1451551.html
W4rl0ck,
interesting tool, thanks for the heads-up.
I have an interest in this since I am involved in developing software that combats such concerted actions, electronic voting fraud and other disruptive attack strategies by creating trust-based voting and better forum scoring mechanisms.
a_person,
I don't think anyone, even Russia, are contesting Georgia's soverignity. So why are you trying to tout that as a major concern? Defending a ethnic minority population from being wiped out is a pretty darn good excuse for thwarting attacks if you ask me, especially when already protecting the area.
The whole conflict with it's probable risk/rewards seems like a highly orchestrated effort by those with interests in the region. It's nothing that can be proved since any admission from those involved would never be given, but a good analysis based on factual events and showing who had to gain from the initiation of the conflict as well as the most probable outcomes is an important background knowledge for understanding what has happened.
The strong indications of there being no "miscalculations" by the georgian leadership and it's supporters, also leads to the strong public indignation seen in most countries with the dirty political game that unfolded that sacrificed the lives and properties of the civilian ethnic minority.
interesting tool, thanks for the heads-up.
I have an interest in this since I am involved in developing software that combats such concerted actions, electronic voting fraud and other disruptive attack strategies by creating trust-based voting and better forum scoring mechanisms.
a_person,
I don't think anyone, even Russia, are contesting Georgia's soverignity. So why are you trying to tout that as a major concern? Defending a ethnic minority population from being wiped out is a pretty darn good excuse for thwarting attacks if you ask me, especially when already protecting the area.
The whole conflict with it's probable risk/rewards seems like a highly orchestrated effort by those with interests in the region. It's nothing that can be proved since any admission from those involved would never be given, but a good analysis based on factual events and showing who had to gain from the initiation of the conflict as well as the most probable outcomes is an important background knowledge for understanding what has happened.
The strong indications of there being no "miscalculations" by the georgian leadership and it's supporters, also leads to the strong public indignation seen in most countries with the dirty political game that unfolded that sacrificed the lives and properties of the civilian ethnic minority.
Maybe the Russians were just outta Beluga....it happens