russia/georgia

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:

I don't think the differences are huge enough to dismiss the comparison.
Who cares what you think? You are brainwashed, you believe every anti-Israel lie, you admitted that you want Israel to disappear. Who gives a shit about what you think, the differences are huge, Israel was shelled by rockets from Lebanon, Russia was not, Israelis were killed and kidnapped in Israel, Russians were not, Israelis were held hostage in Lebanon, Russians were not. The differences make situations absolutely incomparable regardless of what you think.

A couple of differences beside the ones you mention needs to be noted as well: 1. The Georgian government planned and conducted the actions that lead to the Russian invasion them self. The Lebanese government did not even sanction the Hezbollah attack, they were screwed over by rogue militants. 2. Georgia lead a large military campaign in disputed land against a people who wants independence. Hezbollah, not Lebanon, conducted a minor operation against Israeli fighters (also on disputed land) - the sort of operation that Israel has done countless of times all over the world, including all the way up here on the north pole. 3. The Georgian people supported their government and were willing to fight the Ossetians for their land. The Lebanese people had nothing to do, whatsoever, with the Hezbollah attacks.
LOL, what a moron!!! You just added three more major differences to my list of differences while arguing that two situations are identical. Do they teach you logic in Lillehammer?

Nobody disputes the offended part's right to do something
Oh but you do. You dispute Israel's right to exist to begin with (and you admitted that) and you reject any realistic way Israel can fight back. You denounce commando raids, you denounce invasions, you denounce kidnappings of people like Eichmann, you denounce targeted assassinations of terrorists like Sheik Yasin. Given that you, the UN and arab governments do absolutely nothing to stop attacks against Israel - you in essence do demand that Israel roll over and die. And that's why idiots like you are irrelevant - because your position is absurd and unrealistic. No one ever paid attention to self-righteous idiots and no one ever will so keep whining.

Why, so we can fight and die for Saakasvhilis right to fulfill his political promises instead of you?
We were dying for you in 1944. And we are still protecting your stinking country today as you are a [completely useless] NATO member whose contribution to the common defense is ZERO. You are so fucking cavalier about Russia because you're hiding behind four countries that separate you from them. And even if worse comes to worse we're going to be dying for you again while you will smugly lecture us on how to kill less civilians at the expense of getting our troops killed. Your Baltic neighbors are absolutely furious and hysterical about this Russian aggression. But hey, what do you care? When you are surrounded by Sweden, Denmark and Iceland it's so easy to be brave, self-righteous and politically correct. Scum like you truly disgusts me.

 

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:

Forget about nationality, forget about patriotism, etc. Imagine a people coming from abroad to settle in America, and imagine they decide to live in your state and turn it into their exclusive homeland.

it's hard to imagine because:

-there never was an arab state in Palestine
-the region was part of the Turkish and later British empire, it did not belonged to arabs
-Most of the land was unpopulated desert
-The jews migrated to the area in accordance with the law of the land at the time and with the permission of local authorities
-The arabs were also migrating to the area during the same timeframe and in equal numbers
-At the time of the partition the area was populated by arabs and jews legally residing there and the partition was therefore the only viable solution
-First the arabs got 76% of Palestine and established Trans-Jordan, the rest of the land was divided equally between the Arabs and Jews. Jews therefore got about 12-14% of the original Palestine mandate, yet they accepted the deal. The arabs who got two countries and almost 90% of the land did not.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
I don't think the differences are huge enough to dismiss the comparison.
Who cares what you think?

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for anything, I'm simply making points and it is up to whoever reads it to decide whether the comparison is valid or not. I know one thing for sure though, I'm far from the only (western) person who thinks the government of the US is extremely hypocritical. Bush's approval rates even suggests that most Americans might agree with me as well.

Quote from a_person:
You are brainwashed, you believe every anti-Israel lie, you admitted that you want Israel to disappear.

No I didn't, and I dare you to quote me on it. If this was 1947, I'd say it would have been very wrong to create an Israeli state on land that was inhabited by almost 50% Arabs. Even today I'll say it was a huge mistake to do that to the indigenous inhabitants of the land. But does that mean I want Israel dismantled? By no means, allot of Israelis was born after all this and had no choice - people who regard the land as theirs and know no other land. Throwing them out would be just as bad as it was of the Israeli settlers to throw Palestinians out during the wars. To justify something that horrible by saying it was done to the Palestinians first, would be as absurd as saying the Zionist settlers were justified in their throwing out the Palestinians because of what they experienced during WWII. That doesn't make any sense, getting hit by one does not justify hitting another.

No, I don't want Israel dismantled, I simply wish for justice for both peoples.

Quote from a_person:
A couple of differences beside the ones you mention needs to be noted as well:
[...]
LOL, what a moron!!! You just added three more major differences to my list of differences while arguing that two situations are identical. Do they teach you logic in Lillehammer?

I never said they're identical, again I dare you to quote me on it. I said they're comparable because of their similarities. In both cases, democratic, independent nations were brutally invaded and bombarded by a far stronger power after offending it. That's the main plot in both cases, and that's why they're comparable. The details obviously vary, but while some of the differences makes the Israeli invasion more legit (the ones you mentioned), other differences makes it less legit (the ones I mentioned). So all in all, the differences even each other out to some extent. Whether this extent is sufficient enough to say the US should treat both situations the same, is a matter of judgment. I say it is, you say it's not, and anybody else who considers the facts can make up their own damn minds. Let's leave it at that.

Quote from a_person:
Nobody disputes the offended part's right to do something
Oh but you do. You dispute Israel's right to exist to begin with (and you admitted that) and you reject any realistic way Israel can fight back. You denounce commando raids, you denounce invasions, you denounce kidnappings of people like Eichmann, you denounce targeted assassinations of terrorists like Sheik Yasin. Given that you, the UN and arab governments do absolutely nothing to stop attacks against Israel - you in essence do demand that Israel roll over and die. And that's why idiots like you are irrelevant - because your position is absurd and unrealistic. No one ever paid attention to self-righteous idiots and no one ever will so keep whining.

What a rant! Sounds like you're trying to convince yourself

Quote from a_person:
Why, so we can fight and die for Saakasvhilis right to fulfill his political promises instead of you?
We were dying for you in 1944.

So were the Russians. More than 20 million of them died during WWII. We should die now to fight the other people who died for us, because you died for us against an ideology that is long dead? That doesn't make any sense at all. I bet you don't even know what the word logic means.

Quote from a_person:
And we are still protecting your stinking country today as you are a [completely useless] NATO member whose contribution to the common defense is ZERO.

We don't need the US, we can find protection elsewhere (or make our own damned nukes, point them towards Russia and live happily ever after). It is the US that needs our strategic position close to Russia. SV, a leftist party that's in government now together with the Labor Party and the Center Party has actually been fighting fiercely to leave NATO altogether as they don't see any need for keeping old alliances long after the Soviet threat has disappeared. Their cries obviously didn't get through though, and frankly I think its good, i think we should stay close to the American people. But it's gotten hard with this last clown of a President they elected, and it will probably keep getting harder and harder if they elect McCain. Hopefully Obama will be a better leader of the US. So you can just shut your traphole and be thankful we're putting up with this bullshit.

Quote from a_person:
You are so fucking cavalier about Russia because you're hiding behind four countries that separate you from them.

First of all, we share a boarder with Russia in the North, so they don't have to run through other countries to invade us. Second, Sweden is undoubtedly the worst buffer zone imaginable. They tried to take no side during WWII, but in reality they took all sides. They allowed German troops to use Swedish railroads freely to transport anything they needed for the invasion. So no, if Russia were to become a real threat in the future, we wouldn't feel safe at all. In fact, since we're always taking the side of the US, whereas Sweden will stay neutral and God knows what Finland will do, we'll probably be one of the first countries to fall. You on the other hand, are on the other side of the planet, on your own freaking island, in a huge country that, if attacked, will respond by destroying every ounce of Russian land in a matter of hours. The only way your country will fall is if the entire world falls. My country could easily be destroyed and forgotten. So you can stick your lecture about the Russian threat up your ass.

Obviously you're going to say something in the lines of "LOL, as if we ever need you filthy spineless eurotrash, there's no interest for us in having you as an ally, we should leave you all to die", so i'll respond to that immediately:

Today, it is believed that Globus II has an important role in the US anti-ballistic missile system. Located near the Russian border it is highly capable of monitoring and building a signature database of Russian missiles. In addition, Vardø is well placed for the radar to collect precision data on the warheads and decoys carried by possible Russian, future Iranian (and, formerly, Iraqi) missiles fired toward the United States. These considerations, together with the questionable nature of the advantages of Globus II as a space surveillance sensor, have led to even more controversy, including a series of official complaints by Russia.

In 2000, during a storm, the radome was torn off and uncovered the radar-dish[5]. At that time the it was pointing directly towards Russia. A local newspaper editor commented: "I'm not an expert, but I thought space was in the sky.". Official comments claimed that the radar was still being tested and that it pointed towards Russia was a pure coincidence. The Russian general Leonid Ivashov said in a statement to the Norwegian newspaper, Dagbladet, that Russia had programmed tactical nuclear weapons to attack the radar station.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Globus_II

That's what we get from helping the US - tactical nukes aimed at us. In this relationship with the US, we're taking the great risks, not the US. We could leave you and move closer to Russia, become friends with them, but we're not doing it. We could leave you and create a Nordic defense alliance to protect ourself without aggravating Russia as the US friendship indeed does, but we're not doing that either. We could leave you and join the EU for security - the EU is not as antagonizing in Russian eyes as the US is, so it would definitely make us safer - but we're not doing that either. No, we're placing our balls on the line, for our friendship with the US.

Quote from a_person:
And even if worse comes to worse we're going to be dying for you again while you will smugly lecture us on how to kill less civilians at the expense of getting our troops killed. Your Baltic neighbors are absolutely furious and hysterical about this Russian aggression.

The Soviet Union is long gone and the Russians has no interest in doing us any harm, nor in occupying us. The only thing that might get us into trouble with the Russians today, would be our alliance with the US - our acceptance of US operations on our land. If this friendship, this alliance gets us into trouble with Russia, of course we would expect help, that would be the least the US could do.

Quote from a_person:
But hey, what do you care? When you are surrounded by Sweden, Denmark and Iceland it's so easy to be brave, self-righteous and politically correct. Scum like you truly disgusts me.

LOL, Denmark is to the south and Iceland is a small island in the ocean to the west. Have you ever seen a map of Scandinavia?

 

[Gringinho]

The NATO doctrines for the defense of Europe are pretty interesting. It mainly outlines the UK and Iceland as becoming huge airbases for attacks on any russian invasion force. Northern Scandinavia is largely expected to fall to russian domination very quickly, all while they turn into a scene for more easily attacking russian forces. That does not bode well for the scandinavian population - being on the receiving end of tactical bombing in a conflict involving NATO and Russia. With the central european countries things are mixed and more complicated, as this is where the ground fighting would happen to a larger extent. Especially Germany is key for pushing back against any russian invasion on the ground. However, the land detachment of northern Scandinavia peninsula means that there would not be any tanks rolling into there in support for it from NATO, it will be more of a sea and air campaign in particular.

I guess that brings a smile on the face of at least a_person ...


The threat of Russia towards Europe is something completely different nowadays, though, and both politicians and the general population are very aware of this. It is extremely unlikely that Europe and Russia will start any conflict involving their respective main territories. Russia has transformed a lot since the fall of the Soviet union.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
it's hard to imagine because:

-there never was an arab state in Palestine
-the region was part of the Turkish and later British empire, it did not belonged to arabs
-Most of the land was unpopulated desert
-The jews migrated to the area in accordance with the law of the land at the time and with the permission of local authorities
-The arabs were also migrating to the area during the same timeframe and in equal numbers
-At the time of the partition the area was populated by arabs and jews legally residing there and the partition was therefore the only viable solution
-First the arabs got 76% of Palestine and established Trans-Jordan, the rest of the land was divided equally between the Arabs and Jews. Jews therefore got about 12-14% of the original Palestine mandate, yet they accepted the deal. The arabs who got two countries and almost 90% of the land did not.

Priceless. From Time Immemorial, or The Case for Israel? These claims you make here are mostly so old and long forgotten, that not even regular Israelis believe in them. Let alone historians and scholars (including Jewish and Israeli ones). You don't happen to be a fellow by the name Chaim Ben Pesach? The freak (who holds similar views as you) is actually banned from Israel, freaking hilarious.

Let's take a closer look at your documentation. As I specifically told you to forget about nationality and patriotism, as I told you to consider only the land of your forbears - the land you own and live by - the first two points and the last point is completely irrelevant. You can skip the documentation of those three if you feel like it, though I must mention that they're inaccurate at best. Let us focus on point 3, 4, 5 and 6:

Quote from a_person:
-Most of the land was unpopulated desert
-The jews migrated to the area in accordance with the law of the land at the time and with the permission of local authorities
-The arabs were also migrating to the area during the same timeframe and in equal numbers
-At the time of the partition the area was populated by arabs and jews legally residing there and the partition was therefore the only viable solution

Please, don't give me the famous Mark Twain quote, if we were to take his words for truth, Greece and Syria would be as empty wastelands as Palestine was said to be. We've got Ottoman and British population counts, DNA-tests, thousands of testimonies, archaeological remains, countless of quotes by other travelers as well as indigenous Palestinians AND Zionist leaders (including David Ben-Gurion), to tell us about the population of the Southern Levant. So we should be able to get into the bottom of these claims rather easily. This ought to be interesting.

Evidence, documentation, argumentative reasoning, sources, sources for sources, anything. Shoot.

 

[a_person]

Quote from destroyer:

I'm simply making points and it is up to whoever reads it to decide
The only point you actually made was to add three more differences between the wars to the four very significant differences I had compiled and then in a completely illogical manner declare that the wars were virtually identical and therefore the US was hypocritical. That was plain stubborn and silly.

I know one thing for sure though, I'm far from the only (western) person who thinks the government of the US is extremely hypocritical.
Hey, I am another western person to agree with that. In fact every government is hypocritical, so are you, so am likely I, so is everyone else. But I do agree that this US government is in a league of its own when it comes to hypocrisy.

Nevertheless the Second Lebanon War and this Russian invasion of Georgia have nothing in common due to vast differences in circumstances of these wars and can not therefore serve as an evidence of hypocrisy. If you want a valid comparison you should compare the Russian invasion to the war in Iraq. But the second Lebanon war (which was caused by a terror attack and which objective was to root out a foreign terror network - Hezbollah) can only be compared to the invasion of Afghanistan which was also caused by a terror attack and which objective was also to destroy a foreign terror network (Al-Qaeda).


No I didn't, and I dare you to quote me on it.
When you advocate a one state solution (and you did) you advocate the destruction of Israel, You know that as well as I do and you are not fooling anyone else by your cheap pro-peace rhetoric. There'll be no peace with a one-state solution and you know that and it's fine with you but there'll be no jewish state on the planet any more either and that's why you are in favor of this solution to begin with.


The Soviet Union is long gone and the Russians has no interest in doing us any harm
As I said before it's very brave for you to say when you have three countries between you and Russia (I know you have a smal unusable common border with Russia near the North Pole, don't lecture me on geography).

That's just too bad that no Russian neighbor on either side of the Russian border shares your cavalier attitude and optimistic sentiment regarding the issue. But why would you care, Russia is their problem, not yours.

 

[a_person]

Quote from Gringinho:

It is extremely unlikely that Europe and Russia will start any conflict involving their respective main territories.

Oh but I agree, Russia will steal parts of Georgia (or perhaps the entire Georgia), it will then still the Crimea from Ukraine, perhaps the entire Ukraine, then it will take parts (or all) of the baltic states...

Of course it will create provocations and false flag operations (remember the Reichstag fire?). But you people believe in American, Israeli and Georgian provocations and false flag operations but not in the Russian/Arab/Iranian ones. So your governments will do absolutely nothing other than sending humanitarian aid which Russia will still. And people like you will keep rationalizing on the internets why it's all the fault of the US and those states that Russia attacked (Estonia, Ukraine, Georgia, Latvia etc), why nothing needs to be done to help them and how Russia has transformed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Quote from Gringinho:

Russia has transformed a lot since the fall of the Soviet union.

Actually it did. The problem is it did not like the result of the transformation and it's now transforming back to its previous self, one has to be deaf, blind and stupid not to see that.

 

[Gringinho]

a_person,
the world has changed after the fall of communism. Russia are no longer communist. The US has not changed a lot, though - and continues to seek strong domination through destabilizing like it always has done. In fact it kept almost all of it's destabilizing interests.

Geopolitically, there are huge differences in the strategic transformation aftermath of the Soviet union demise, between Russia and the US. Russia has changed a lot.

 

[a_person]

Quote from Gringinho:

Russia are no longer communist.... Geopolitically, there are huge differences in the strategic transformation aftermath of the Soviet union demise, between Russia and the US. Russia has changed a lot.

I did not dispute that, did I? Russia has changed indeed and become a disgusting monstrous hybrid combining the worst sides of totalitarian communism with the ugliest characteristics of unbridled capitalism.

And now it's quickly transforming back into its previous authoritarian, freedom-suppressing aggressive and imperialist self. Russia does not have to be communist to intimidate, blackmail, harass and attack others, it's been doing it for a thousand years (not just during the last century when it was communist). But don't take my word for it, ask the Georgians.

 

[destroyer]

Quote from a_person:
I'm simply making points and it is up to whoever reads it to decide
The only point you actually made was to add three more differences between the wars to the four very significant differences I had compiled and then in a completely illogical manner declare that the wars were virtually identical and therefore the US was hypocritical. That was plain stubborn and silly.

The main plot is the same, so the comparison stands. I've noted that you don't approve of it, you've said it five times already. Just leave it at that.

Quote from a_person:
I know one thing for sure though, I'm far from the only (western) person who thinks the government of the US is extremely hypocritical.
Hey, I am another western person to agree with that. In fact every government is hypocritical, so are you, so am likely I, so is everyone else. But I do agree that this US government is in a league of its own when it comes to hypocrisy.

Ah, so the real reason for your strong opposition to the comparison is not that it makes the US government to be hypocritical, but that it implies Israel is a wrongdoer. Are you by any chance part Israeli? More and more it seems like you'd support Israel before the US.

As for Iraq being a better comparison, I do not agree at all because everything is different except for the fact that one country invaded another. The type of provocation is very different, there were allot of lies involved, Saddam was a dictator. The main plot is simply radically different.

Quote from a_person:
No I didn't, and I dare you to quote me on it.
When you advocate a one state solution (and you did) you advocate the destruction of Israel, You know that as well as I do and you are not fooling anyone else by your cheap pro-peace rhetoric. There'll be no peace with a one-state solution and you know that and it's fine with you but there'll be no jewish state on the planet any more either and that's why you are in favor of this solution to begin with.

So now I'm an antisemite too, huh? I'll say one thing very clear, I do not care much for ethnic nor religious purity. A pure racist Jewish homeland means squat to me. So if you're accusing me of advocating for a none arab-frei Israel, you are absolutely right. If you are accusing me of advocating for the removal of Jews from the land however, you are absolutely wrong. I do not support any action that even could lead to that. No, the implementation of a binational state would have to be done very precautiously over as much time as needed to do it safely. Somewhat comparable to the way EU is slowly and steadily growing now into something all populations can live with, or the possible future reunification of Korea. In other words, if it is practically impossible, it would simply never happen. But the very notion that the future could bare something like that would change the Palestinian mindset drastically; they are watching their land slipping further and further away now and they're getting desperate. Simply knowing that it's not slipping away anymore, that in time it could become their land again, that the wheels are in motion, would make wonders.

Quote from a_person:
The Soviet Union is long gone and the Russians has no interest in doing us any harm
As I said before it's very brave for you to say when you have three countries between you and Russia (I know you have a smal unusable common border with Russia near the North Pole, don't lecture me on geography).

You suggested that having Denmark under us and Iceland to the west should somehow make us feel safe from the Russians. Either your downright stupid or your geography is way off.

First of all, Finland and Sweden are not members of Nato, so they would probably allow Russia to do what they want in order to stay safe. If not, if they took our side, they'd probably fall in hours. Either way, the Russian army would have fairly free passage to us. Second, the Russian navy can reach us pretty easily from the Barents sea. And third, the Russian air force is already exploring ways to bomb us back to the stone age, and has conducted test flights with bombers frequently near our borders the last few years: http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2007-09-06-russia-bombers_N.htm

I sure as hell wouldn't appreciate FOAB's falling on my head. That's the situation without even mentioning the fact that they could send a couple of hundred nukes at us from Russian mainland and completely delete our existence.

But hey, you live on the other side of the planet, so why should you care if an all-out-war breaks out on our continent. Judging from your views on certain issues, I'd guess you're way to old to enlist, so this war would basically be a little evening Fox News entertainment for you.

Quote from a_person:
That's just too bad that no Russian neighbor on either side of the Russian border shares your cavalier attitude and optimistic sentiment regarding the issue. But why would you care, Russia is their problem, not yours.

I don't want to ignore these countries, I just don't think we should do anything to risk open war either. Today Nato decided to simply shut Russia out as long as they don't do exactly as we say. That's without even knowing exactly what happened in South Ossetia. What if Saakashvili actually did kill 2000 civilians? Even if he didn't, the fact that we're not even treating this as a relevant issue is perceived as extreme arrogance in Moscow (and other none-western parts of the world). And why the fuck sign the damn missile defense shield papers in the middle of this crisis!? That's just begging for a new cold war. Rushing Georgia and Ukraine into NATO in the middle of all of this as crazy Merkel of Germany suggested, would without any doubt make the new cold war inevitable. Germany has got a bad history of starting world wars, they shouldn't even be allowed to speak.

These two countries, Georgia and Ukraine, would carry allot of baggage into NATO. If Georgia was already a member before attacking South Ossetia, we wouldn't have had any options but to come to their rescue and full-scale war could well have been the reality. Luckily though, because of European "spinelessness", the conflict is currently limited to Georgia. I sincerely believe that's the best for everyone, including the Georgians.

I noticed you didn't provide any evidence for your claims about Palestine before Israel. I'm still waiting for that.