Will Georgia turn into a Moscow satellite?

[PLATO]

Originally posted by snoopy369


I would note that this argument is particularly foolish given the US's involvement in Iraq (and many other situations in the past 6 decades). We went in counter to the wishes of the established government because they were violating the human rights of oppressed minorities (identical to Russia's claims in Georgia). Criticize the claims of Russia all you want, but the particular line of reasoning you employ is very poor.

Oh so incorrect.

The American invasion was based on an "iminent threat" of WMD.

...at least that was the line. At the time, nearly everybody agreed with the fact that there at least looked like there might be a threat (although obviously many did not agree with the invasion). Even the Russians thought there might be WMD there, as evidenced by them voting for 12 different UNSC resolutions on the matter.

I am afraid that it is your reasoning that is flawed, not mine.

The situation in Georgia bears little, if any, resemblence to the situation in Iraq.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by PLATO
The situation in Georgia bears little, if any, resemblence to the situation in Iraq.

Gulf of Tonkin would be the better comparison based on the facts so far.

[onodera]

Originally posted by PLATO

Originally posted by onodera

Hm, is there a better source, preferrably with an exact quote?

From the article...which you apparently didn't read:

"Poland, by deploying (the system) is exposing itself to a strike — 100 percent," Gen. Anatoly Nogovitsyn, the deputy chief of staff of Russia's armed forces, was quoted by the Interfax news agency as saying.

Sorry, I was using my handheld last night and it didn't display the article properly. But he's right, why would we ignore Poland after that if we were ever to use nukes?

Imagine what would happen if we didn't.

Yes, a soverign country would be ruling over its own territory without foriegn intervention

There would be noticeably more blood. It's Caucasus, blood feuds are still featured there.

Did 1441 authorize the United States to attack a sovereign country? No.

While that is debateable to many, it was not my point. My point was that the UN was heavily involved. I assume your answer means that you can't find where Russia ever brought this situation to the UN? Don't worry...no one else can either.

The UNSC did convene before we entered SO, but failed to pass anything, apart from a press release urging both SO and Georgia to stop the violence. A protocol of that session would be interesting to read, though.

For the record though...The Americans are there because the Georgian government asked us to be. You guys are there because rebels asked you to be. Hopefully you see the difference.

No, that's what the UN is for, not the US.

Where exactly is the UN's army?

Exactly. The UN needs a better army, not just some peacekeepers that can't even stop the violence.

[onodera]

Originally posted by Saras


If you're an officer, that means you're in reserve (unless UniCredit is a military unit ), and as such a civilian, hence you can criticise your CIVILIAN government.

I can, for example, I find abominable the "Help SO" fundraisers that are enforced on people. However, I am not going to criticize the actions of the military.

[carnide_]

Originally posted by onodera

I find abominable the "Help SO" fundraisers that are enforced on people.

Enforced on people??! Where? By Who?
Whats going on? Odessa mafia rules again?

---
SO== South Ossetia, I presume.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by PLATO


Oh so incorrect.

The American invasion was based on an "iminent threat" of WMD.

...at least that was the line. At the time, nearly everybody agreed with the fact that there at least looked like there might be a threat (although obviously many did not agree with the invasion).

How's that lobotomy working out?

Anyone who said they believed this was bull****ting or ignorant. Any WMD Iraq might have had was overwhelmingly likely to be a few chemical shells, which are chicken feed.

Even the Russians thought there might be WMD there, as evidenced by them voting for 12 different UNSC resolutions on the matter.

Because people always vote for resolutions based on the literal text of the resolution and not any other interests that the resolution might just happen to serve.

I am afraid that it is your reasoning that is flawed, not mine.

Dude, you aren't usually completely loopy, but hell man.... he's right.

The situation in Georgia bears little, if any, resemblence to the situation in Iraq.

Only in that the Georgian invasion was provoked and was probably a good idea.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Comrade Snuggles


fixed

Ghey name, Che. Surely you can do better.

Can you explain to me what is wrong with your fellow citizens? Are they really that stupid? Can they not see that both Russia and China have reason to be worried when your country starts trying to surround them with military bases? Or at the fact that NATO still exists, even though the Cold War was long over.

Homestly, your lot are like a bunch of toddlers whose parents gave them bren guns for Christmas.

I don't like Putin, but I'd take him any day because he at least lives in the real world.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon
Or at the fact that NATO still exists, even though the Cold War was long over.

I think Russia gave NATO a newfound purpose this August.

[Lancer]

Originally posted by Saras


I think Russia gave NATO a newfound purpose this August.

It did. Putin's little adventure united NATO like nothing else could. Thank you Mr Putin

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

I think Russia gave NATO a newfound purpose this August.

You muppet. NATO had this purpose no matter what the Russians did. I confidently predicted in 1992 that NATO would not be dismantled, even though there was little rationale for it.

NATO is an Atlanticist institution, supported by those who don't want Europe forming a power bloc with other countries on the Eurasian continent. That's the main reason for its existence. Democracy, "shared values" and all that other bull**** is just the covering excuse for cur like nations to avoid admitting that the US has its dick up their arses. International politics has always been like this, and only retards believe the excuses. The latest events with Georgia are simply the latest expressions of hypocrisy from all sides.

You would have thought it would have been rational for the West to try to invite Russia into the alliance with various sticks and carrots in the 90s. In fact, it would be in Russia's interest to do so. Instead, there has been rampant tardery and obvious attempts to ring Russia around with bases (somehow this is not seen as provocative).

This is all immediately obvious to any rational person with the least acquaintance with the situation, even if they won't admit it.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon
NATO is an Atlanticist institution, supported by those who don't want Europe forming a power bloc with other countries on the Eurasian continent. That's the main reason for its existence. Democracy, "shared values" and all that other bull**** is just the covering excuse for cur like nations to avoid admitting that the US has its dick up their arses.

Democracy and shared values certainly form a moral basis for NATO.

International politics has always been like this, and only retards believe the excuses. The latest events with Georgia are simply the latest expressions of hypocrisy from all sides.

Hypocrisy from all sides? Russia has been manufacturing this war for 3 years now, and now reaped the fruits. The fact that you were not following this and were not listening to Saak's pleas for assistance all these years is no excuse.

Instead, there has been rampant tardery and obvious attempts to ring Russia around with bases (somehow this is not seen as provocative).

What bases, baby?

This is all immediately obvious to any rational person with the least acquaintance with the situation, even if they won't admit it.

Not you.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Agathon




You muppet. NATO had this purpose no matter what the Russians did. I confidently predicted in 1992 that NATO would not be dismantled, even though there was little rationale for it.

NATO is an Atlanticist institution, supported by those who don't want Europe forming a power bloc with other countries on the Eurasian continent. That's the main reason for its existence. Democracy, "shared values" and all that other bull**** is just the covering excuse for cur like nations to avoid admitting that the US has its dick up their arses. International politics has always been like this, and only retards believe the excuses. The latest events with Georgia are simply the latest expressions of hypocrisy from all sides.

You would have thought it would have been rational for the West to try to invite Russia into the alliance with various sticks and carrots in the 90s. In fact, it would be in Russia's interest to do so. Instead, there has been rampant tardery and obvious attempts to ring Russia around with bases (somehow this is not seen as provocative).

This is all immediately obvious to any rational person with the least acquaintance with the situation, even if they won't admit it.

BS

[Lancer]

NATO evolved from the need to prevent Russia conquering what was left of europe. After the Sovs fell that mission lost some of its lustre, that's true. However Putin just gave it a nice shine again.

This is particularly true as the EU is about to lay an egg on the issue of Georgia at their upcoming meeting. That will show european people that the need the US very much.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Saras

Democracy and shared values certainly form a moral basis for NATO.

Like Gladio? You gotta be ****ting me. I have a bridge to sell you.

Hypocrisy from all sides? Russia has been manufacturing this war for 3 years now, and now reaped the fruits. The fact that you were not following this and were not listening to Saak's pleas for assistance all these years is no excuse.

You live in a dream, little boy. All sides have been playing for an advantage. If you are dumb enough to believe your governments propaganda, then that's your problem. Things have always worked this way, for the most part.

Saakashvili is a tin pot authoritarian who doesn't think twice about sending out the cops to beat the crap out of his own people, and who wanted to **** over the Ossetians.

What bases, baby?

Are you really that insulated from world events. Go look at a map.

Not you.

As if your judgement means anything. You probably went to school in a barn.

[Saras]

Originally posted by Agathon


Like Gladio? You gotta be ****ting me. I have a bridge to sell you.

How is Gladio in contradiction to what I wrote?

You live in a dream, little boy. All sides have been playing for an advantage. If you are dumb enough to believe your governments propaganda, then that's your problem. Things have always worked this way, for the most part.

Same to you, supposedly big, mature and reasonable man (why a commie then, no idea). You have absolutely no idea whatsoever what you're babbling about.

Puting is a tin pot authoritarian who doesn't think twice about sending out the cops to beat the crap out of his own people, and who wants to **** over the pretty much everyone.

corrected

Are you really that insulated from world events. Go look at a map.

I've seen that map, and there aint no bases.

As if your judgement means anything. You probably went to school in a barn.

**** off, *******. My judgement on Russian matters actually is worth infinitely more than yours, yours being zero.