Rock Bottom: Russian Navy buys French warships.

[dannubis]

Come on dude ! It's not like I support US foreign policy but what hapened during this "occurrence" is beyond belief.

[Patroklos]

Why bringing up an occurrence from 1994 was at all relevant?

How is it not relevant? Grozny and SO The both are examples of contemporary conventional warfare involving the Russian Federation. Hell, they are rigt next to each other. Serb seems to think the bombardment of Tskhinvali was some apocolyptic event, but at the same time has no problem with Grozny being completely destroyed.

Yet instead of trying to reconcile that, you feel the need to bring up something from 1864? Is there no end to your nationalist apologism?

[Drake Tungsten]

Never ascribe to nationalism what can be explained by mere retardation.

[Lonestar]

For the same reason your country razed an entire city of Atlanta.

That's actually a bit of a Myth. Atlanta was burned by retreating Confederates, and later on those who lamented the "lost cause" decided to pin the burning on Sherman. Stuff like Gone with the Wind has helped push the myth.

[Patroklos]

False. While the Confederates did destroy all public and military buildings that might be of benefit to the enemy, Sherman ordered the whole city razed with the exception of churches and hospitals.

The area now covered by Atlanta was the scene of several battles, including the Battle of Peachtree Creek, the Battle of Atlanta, and the Battle of Ezra Church. On September 1, 1864, Confederate General John Bell Hood evacuated Atlanta after a four-month siege mounted by Union General William T. Sherman and ordered all public buildings and possible Confederate assets destroyed. The next day, Mayor James Calhoun surrendered the city, and on September 7 Sherman ordered the civilian population to evacuate. He then ordered Atlanta burned to the ground on November 11 in preparation for his march south, though he spared the city's churches and hospitals.[24]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta#History

However, no matter who destroyed Atlanta it is entirely irrelevant to the attempts of our resident Ruskies to whitewash their modern barbarism.

[Lonestar]

False. While the Confederates did destroy all public and military buildings that might be of benefit to the enemy, Sherman ordered the whole city razed with the exception of churches and hospitals.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta#History

However, no matter who destroyed Atlanta it is entirely irrelevant to the attempts of our resident Ruskies to whitewash their modern barbarism.

My mistake, I was thinking of Columbia/Charleston, not Atlanta. I do note that Sherman ordered everyone out of the city beforehand though, and that the reason it was razed was so that the Confederates wouldn't be able to move back in after the army marched to the sea and started to use the infastructure again. This is, of course, different from encircling a city and leveling it with arty.

[Patroklos]

Its generally accepted that Sherman burned down Columbia on purpose as well. There are no accounts of the Confederates doing so on purpose, though Sherman blames them for doing it on accident.

On February 17, 1865, during the Civil War, much of Columbia was destroyed by fire while being occupied by Union troops under the command of General William Tecumseh Sherman. According to legend, Columbia's First Baptist Church barely missed being torched by Sherman's troops. The soldiers marched up to the church and asked the groundskeeper if he could direct them to the church where the declaration of secession was signed. The loyal groundskeeper directed the men to the nearby Washington Street United Methodist church; thus, the historic landmark was saved from destruction by Union soldiers.

Controversy surrounding the burning of the city started soon after the war ended. General Sherman blamed the high winds and retreating Confederate soldiers for firing bales of cotton, which had been stacked in the streets. General Sherman denied ordering the burning, though he did order militarily significant structures, such as the Confederate Printing Plant, destroyed. Firsthand accounts by local residents, Union soldiers, and a newspaper reporter offer a tale of revenge by Union troops for Columbia's and South Carolina's pivotal role in leading Southern states to secede from the Union. Still other accounts portray it as mostly the fault of the Confederacy. Today, tourists can follow the path General Sherman's army took to enter the city and see structures or remnants of structures that survived the fire.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbia,_South_Carolina#Nineteenth_century

Charleston was never burned via military action, though there was a great fire that burned much of it during the war not related to combat. In addition indiscriminate artillery bombardment throughout the war did take a toll on the city's buildings but nothing like the razing of Atlanta and Columbia

[DinoDoc]

My mistake, I was thinking of Columbia/Charleston, not Atlanta.

Did you just sleep through history class? The entire point of his March to the Sea was to punish the civilian population as part of the doctrine of total war.

His forces occupied the city for several months, and he then ordered Atlanta burned to the ground on November 11 in preparation for his punitive march south. After a plea by Father Thomas O'Reilly of the Immaculate Conception Catholic Church, Sherman did not burn the city's churches or hospitals. However, the remaining war resources were then destroyed in the aftermath and in Sherman's March to the Sea.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlanta_in_the_Civil_War#The_fall_of_Atlanta