Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Miller101;465986]And now there is Russia. Whats next Bush? Its your move. Just please don't fuck this thing up![/QUOTE]

Instead of saying "f Bush," articulate what you think Bush did wrong. What exactly did he do that was so wrong with respect to [B]RUSSIA[/B]? Sometimes I swear, if Bush said he liked babies, some people would say that babies are as evil as Hitler.

As for this whole crisis between Russia, Poland and the US, it's way overblown. Poland is very important to Russia, but no one should seriously think that Russia is going to start a war with NATO over it.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan71.html"]short piece[/URL] that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.

[QUOTE]Why has Putin's Russia turned hostile? Why is Putin mending fences with China, Iran and Syria? Why is Putin sending Bear bombers to the edge of American airspace? Why has Russia turned against America? For Putin's approval rating is three times that of George Bush. Who restarted the Cold War?[/QUOTE]

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;466411]Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.[/QUOTE]

excellent points. I mean, no, we're America, We're ALWAYS RIGHT!!! :doh:

Re: russia/ georgia
 

Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;466411]Just some food for thought: Six former Warsaw Pact nations are now NATO allies, while the United States has nearly 130,000 troops stationed just south of Russia in two different countries.

How nervous would we be in the United States if the situation were reversed? What would our reaction be with Russian warships stationed in the Gulf of Mexico for as long as they saw fit ? Suppose to our west, there was a multi-nation alliance whose original purpose was to fight us if we made any sort of move, is now re-arming with new installed missle shield batteries?

We'd be freaking out, and with good reason.

Sometimes it's good to put yourself in the other guy's shoes.

Here's a pretty [URL="http://www.lewrockwell.com/buchanan/buchanan71.html"]short piece[/URL] that was written some time ago on why Russia appears to be getting a little ansy.[/QUOTE]
So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

Now [URL="http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-georgia22-2008aug22,0,3923121.story"]this is ballin[/URL]'...evil genius shit!

Re: russia/ georgia
 

The US claims the defense missiles are a proactive measure against Iran. However, to the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have inter-continental ballistic missiles. I believe they might have some missiles that could reach Israel, but probably not much further.

So, who nearby does have ICBMs? Russia.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=GhettoDogAllStars;466435]The US claims the defense missiles are a proactive measure against Iran. However, to the best of my knowledge, Iran doesn't have inter-continental ballistic missiles. I believe they might have some missiles that could reach Israel, but probably not much further.

So, who nearby does have ICBMs? Russia.[/quote]
This is a bit dated (Aug. 2000)

[URL]https://www.cia.gov/news-information/speeches-testimony/2000/nio_speech_020900.html[/URL]

but even then, Iran has tested an ICBM capable of reaching Turkey (a NATO member where we have permanent bases). N. Korea tested an ICBM allegedly capable of hitting the mainland U.S. earlier this year, if I remember correctly. While I don't think the performance was anywhere near advertised, it would still pose a significant threat to the NATO area if put in Iranian hands.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;466420]Beems,

Fair point. However, I don't think Putin's foreign policy decisions are rooted solely, or even in large part, on a fear of U.S. power. [B]Putin called the collapse of the USSR the worst political development of the 20th century. [/B] He appears to be bent on restoring Russia to its former glory (i.e., domination of the old Soviet Republics). I wouldn't blame Russia's newfound aggressiveness on NATO's expansion, even though there is a strong tendency among some circles of our society to blame anything and everything that goes wrong on the US and its foreign policy.[/QUOTE]

I'll bet there were some in [I]this[/I] country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.

Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war, and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.

I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today.

I'm sure there will be some who'll be foaming at the mouth upon reading this. But the truth usually has that effect.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;466422]So a country that is "supposed" to be our ally is scared of us and that makes it ok for them to act like geo-political asses? I don't but it that much. I understand the missile shield is provocative but so are Russia's however many nukes.

I believe the missile shield excuse is providing convenient cover for them to be aggressive in a way that they wish they'd never given up.[/QUOTE]

The Russians probably regret giving up their aggressive tendencies after witnessing the recent actions of the United States government. It was the [U]United States[/U] who stopped acting like an ally to Russia. Some might even point to the very election of Vladimir Putin, a former KGB strongman, as an announcement to the world that Russia will no longer put up with what they perceive to be increasing encroachment around their borders.

Russia is doing exactly what we would have done with only about half the intensity.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;466536]I'll bet there were some in [I]this[/I] country who didn't want to see the collapse of the Soviet Union. Namely, the military-industrial complex, along with certain chickenhawks in the current administration and elsewhere in the government. Remember, the best way to keep their stranglehold of power over the sheeple is to have an neverending pseudo "war" with vague, non-distinct enemies. It keeps everyone in fear, allows for the state to take more of our money and liberties, and paints anyone who challenges this "threat" as traitorous, unpatriotic, and un-American.[/QUOTE]

What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? This seems like you're going off on a bit of rant/tangent.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;466536]Putin is only responding to our government's zeal to "spread freedom" throughout the world -- which, as we all should know by now, including the Russians, is an elaborate ruse. [B]The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war[/B], and long for the days of having an "evil empire" to contend with. It's only human nature.[/QUOTE]

So you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.

Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that. Our foreign policy is influenced by 1 President, 1 Vice President, dozens Executive Branch advisors and employees, a Congress of over 400 people and thousands of Congressional advisors, thousands of lobbyists (including, yes, corporate lobbyists), and MILLIONS of members of the voting public like me and you. It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;466536]I don't put the blame solely at the feet of today's Bush Administration. America's long history of "tough" foreign policy goes back to the days of Teddy Roosevelt and World War I and can be directly traced to many, if not most of the world's problems we see today. [/QUOTE]

I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote]The only real purpose is to establish empire, to maintain commitments to corporate interests, and to feed the suicidal, hawkish desires of those who do nothing but glorify war[/quote]

that world view seems a bit lopsided/biased and out of touch with reality. maybe bush jr didn't like that saddam tried to cap his dad, but i'm pretty sure it's not about empire, since the plan is to get out as soon as possible.

i mean, there might be some truth to using the war as a long term way to gain a sphere of influence in a part of the world where america isn't all that popular, but the oversimplified villany bit seems a bit over the top.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

Beem, I get the jist of what you are saying and some of it I agree with to a degree but the idea that our foreign policy is driven by "empire building" is really very laughable. We live in a globalized world where there is no longer hundreds of unique national economies. We have ONE economy and it is the global one. What happens elsewhere in the world directly affects us. That we show interest and interevene by this interest is not "empire building" but rather self preservation. In some cases it has surely been screwy but I can't think of why some view us as imperialists rather than paranoid bully's. The later would seem to make more sense if one was inclined to view us negatively.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;466335]Instead of saying "f Bush," articulate what you think Bush did wrong. What exactly did he do that was so wrong with respect to [B]RUSSIA[/B]? Sometimes I swear, if Bush said he liked babies, some people would say that babies are as evil as Hitler.

As for this whole crisis between Russia, Poland and the US, it's way overblown. Poland is very important to Russia, but no one should seriously think that Russia is going to start a war with NATO over it.[/QUOTE]

F Bush!?!?!? I was pleading with Bush not to screw up again! Thats all! Sorry I didn't make that clearer...............and whose to say that Russia is going to start a war with NATO? How do you know that Bush won't press a launch key by mistake? :)

Look, I know you might be a fan of Bush. You might be a Republican and that is cool. You also might be an independent. And thats cool too. It really is. But, you have to understand that all I've seen that guy do is screw up. And now that Russia is back I'm a little worried. And I just hope Bush doesn't screw this one up. And from the sounds of it things are cooling down a little bit and thats good. Maybe we can get out of this okay.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Miller101;467743]But, you have to understand that all I've seen that guy do is screw up.[/QUOTE]

This is what is wrong with our political system today.

Not picking on Miller in particular here at all just using his words to show what is a common theme in US politics from every side. Absolute statements in general are usually wrong. Absolute statements in politics are ALWAYS wrong. Look, Bush sucked. A lot. But not every single thing he has done has been a screw up. Our current political system allows for only black and white. An "either you're with me or against me" type of thinking where the "opposition" can never do right and has never done right and where my "allies" are always wrong and couldn't ever be wrong. What ever happened to us using some thought to establish nuanced opinions free of absolutism and demagoguery? Are we all to stupid and lazy to think anymore?

I feel like most people's political opinions are as well though out as the opinions of a 14 year old not yet capable of putting any actual time, effort or brain power into actually KNOWING what they are talking about and using that information to form an opinion within the context of their own personal beliefs. They're 50% talking points and 50% emotion.

Again this is not about Miller at all but there are a lot of opinions on this site that come off this way from both sides of the aisle. Not just this site but society in general I guess.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;466745]What do "chickenhawks," "sheeple" and fear mongering have to do with Putin's aspirations? . . . [do] you really believe that Putin really just wants to re-establish the USSR because he doesn't agree with our foreign policy? I don't think you know Putin too well if you think he's just afraid that our invasion of Iraq is just the first step in our march toward Moscow.[/QUOTE]

It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive. I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.

Putin's aspirations are directly tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland. To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the facts.

[QUOTE]Also, I think it's kind of silly to attribute our foreign policy objectives to one monolithic force that is simply bent on world domination. That makes for a nice John Wayne-style world that is divided between the "good guys" and the "bad guys," but life is a tad bit more complicated than that . . . It's kinda silly to say our government's foreign policy is motivated and controlled by one set of evil values and people, don't you think?[/QUOTE]

Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6190858.stm"]sent[/URL] advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already [URL="http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=89"]fighting[/URL] in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps [URL="http://www.marines.mil/units/marforres/Pages/CeremonyopensImmediateResponse2008.aspx"]training[/URL] the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose? Why does NATO even exist anymore?

The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?

You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things. There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.

I could go on and on pointing to various interventions, violent overthrows of foreign governments, and covert operations all over the face of the Earth that the United States government organized, funded, or initiated since the earliest days of the 20th century which would prove my point. Thankfully, you're aware enough of history so that I won't have to rehash them all. But I don't think it's out of the question to say that this country -- this government, if you prefer -- is headed in the wrong direction when it comes to foreign affairs. But make no mistake, this trend is real. It permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle. And it's going to get a whole lot of people killed if we're not careful.

[QUOTE]I think you are, yet again, oversimplifying things. To say that one single country is responsible for most of the world's problems is not realistic. We have done some serious harm around the world via armed interventions, supporting military dictatorships, etc. and we should recognize those problems. But we should also recognize the good that our country has done around the world. Instead, our society seems to be divided between two camps: the first of which refuses to admit that we can do any wrong; and the second of which seems to love self-flagellation and to attribute every bad thing to the American capitalist conspiracy. That you believe that the invasion of Iraq caused Putin to invade Georgia tells me you are in the latter camp. [/QUOTE]

For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops [URL="http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/07/10/9971.shtml"]positioned[/URL] on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute. But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.

You also make reference to the notion that I'm looking at this as if it's black and white, or that it's a simple case of the good guys against the bad guys. It's the neocons and the blowhards in talk radio who characterize it that way. There's a lot of gray area in war, just as there is here. I've always understood that.

The United States is the best country in the world, and there's no place I'd rather live. But I also know we make mistakes -- a lot of them recently, especially in the realm of foreign affairs. I'm also upset by the casual attitude Americans take towards war, and the reflexive willingness to wrap ourselves up in the flag while refusing to take the time to look at issues like these from a different point of view; to recognize that we don't always carry the banner for righteousness -- that maybe our government is up to no good. Why is it we admit that can be the case on domestic issues, but with foreign policy we always walk amongst the angels?

Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

I certify that I have read Beemnseven post above and I approve of his message.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=FRPLG;467472]Beem, I get the jist of what you are saying and some of it I agree with to a degree but the idea that our foreign policy is driven by "empire building" is really very laughable. We live in a globalized world where there is no longer hundreds of unique national economies. We have ONE economy and it is the global one. What happens elsewhere in the world directly affects us. That we show interest and interevene by this interest is not "empire building" but rather self preservation. In some cases it has surely been screwy but I can't think of why some view us as imperialists rather than paranoid bully's. The later would seem to make more sense if one was inclined to view us negatively.[/QUOTE]

See, our foreign policy objectives go way beyond simple, economic considerations. They're a factor, certainly. But the idea that we're just acting for our 'self preservation' is interesting judging by what the implications could be by provoking Russia into World War III.

I'll direct my response to SSG above to you as well, for more details of my explanation.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

I think I'll go back to the Super Happy Funny Thread.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven;467970]See, our foreign policy objectives go way beyond simple, economic considerations. They're a factor, certainly. But the idea that we're just acting for our 'self preservation' is interesting judging by what the implications could be [B]by provoking Russia into World War III[/B].

I'll direct my response to SSG above to you as well, for more details of my explanation.[/quote]

Much of your stance seems based on the presumption that Russia would actually take up arms against the United States. The above bolded statement, and the one quoted below, seem to indicate you believe a Russian reaction to our historically covert, interventionalist strategies, would be an all-out war.

[QUOTE]Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes.[/QUOTE]

I will not comment on the ideology of your views, as I believe it would be a fruitless discussion and would peel back way too many layers of an onion for my tastes, what with economic and homeland defense motives at play.

But to suggest that our recent actions in Georgia and with NATO's missile defense would provoke Russia into an all-out war with us is to drastically overestimate both the threat Russia is capable of carrying out on us and drastically overestimate their likely response to such endeavors.

Simply put, we haven't pissed them off nearly enough, NOWHERE CLOSE, for them to think launching an all-out war is in their best interests.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[URL="http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080826/ap_on_re_eu/georgia;_ylt=ArF6PU6WjVTkZ0Mov90IJ1Os0NUE"]More news on the subject[/URL].

[quote]
Russia stunned the West on Tuesday by recognizing the independence claims of two Georgian breakaway regions, and U.S. warships plied the waters off of Georgia in a gambit the Kremlin saw as gunboat diplomacy.

The announcement by Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ignored the strong opposition of Europe and the United States, and signaled the Kremlin's determination to shape its neighbors' destinies even at the risk of closing its doors to the West.

"We are not afraid of anything, including the prospect of a Cold War," President Dmitry Medvedev said hours after announcing the Kremlin's decision and one day after Parliament had supported the recognition.

While the risk of a military clash with the West seemed remote, the lack of high-level public diplomacy between the White House and the Kremlin added to an uneasy sense here at least of an escalating crisis.

Medvedev also promised a Russian military response to a U.S. missile defense system in Europe. Washington says the system would counter threats from Iran and North Korea, but Russia says it is aimed at blunting Russian nuclear capability.

The Kremlin's recognition of the breakaway regions of South Ossetia and Abkhazia suggested it was willing to risk nearly two decades of economic, political and diplomatic bonds with its Cold War antagonists.[/quote]

Sit tight folks, I'm sure Saber Rattling Diplomacy™ will eventually prevails.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven;467959]
Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already [URL="http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=89"]fighting[/URL] in Georgia. [/quote]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana][COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]I enjoyed reading the majority of your previous post. While I think that bring up some valid points I have reservations about believing the eyewitness account of US troops fighting in Georgia. I want to make it very clear that I am not saying that it did not happen. I am going to point out why it is not likely.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]First, I will start out petty and work my way up.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]1. The woman said that us markings were worn on the forearm. We wear them on the shoulder. Petty... I know, words can get lost in translation.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]2. Most U.S. service members fight in large groups and wear the standard ACU uniform. On these uniforms the U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA. is worn. These uniforms are not "black".[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]3. There are smaller operations teams (I don't have to name them all) that do perform missions like this. However when they do, no one would be able to (positively) identify them as U.S. Troops. This is because there would be no names, no rank, no U.S. REVERSE-SIDE FULL-COLOR U.S. FLAG CLOTH REPLICA., and no U.S. Army (Navy or Marines) on those "black" uniforms.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]4. Often times U.S. service members will buddy-up with Foreign Service members and exchange items such as uniforms, flags, rank, bayonets etc. It is not a stretch of the imagination that Georgian forces that train with or who have met U.S. troops, have exchanged some items.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]It almost seems as if someone wants people to believe that there was U.S. involvement.[/FONT][/COLOR]

[COLOR=black][FONT=Verdana]FYI, we train just about any allied nation that wants to be trained...to an extent.[/FONT][/COLOR]
[/FONT][/COLOR]

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959][B]It is the policies set forth by the chickenhawks in this administration and elsewhere in the government that Putin is responding to. [/B] The sheeple -- whom I classify as apathetic citizens, oblivious to the actions of their government, yet who continue to vote for the same two-party system that gets us into messes like this -- blindly go along with it. [B]What we have seen from Putin is a reaction, not an unwarranted offensive.[/B] I will say that if Putin does long for the days of Soviet domination of the East, our government has done a fine job of pushing him in that direction.[/QUOTE]

I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959][B]Putin's aspirations are [U]directly[/U] tied to U.S. military adventures in the middle east, the stationing of over 130,000 U.S. troops in Russia's back yard, by the U.S. government's support of Georgia's admittance into NATO, and by insistence on the part of our government to establish anti-missle systems in Poland.[/B] To me, there appears to be a strong faction in Washington, D.C. hell bent on rekindling the Cold War. You call that "silly," but I call it a simple observation of the [B]facts[/B].[/QUOTE]

See my comments above. Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland?

Don't get me wrong, I think our foreign policy and superpower status irks the hell out of Putin. And, to be fair, many of the Bush administration's policies reek of arrogance and offend many people around the globe. But, Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that [I]openly and explicitly[/I] declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959]Actually, I don't think the neocons' ultimate goal is "world domination." I just don't think they're content with simply being the world's lone superpower. There's more to it than that, and their actions would indicate that they'd like to take it a step further. Take the fact that our military [URL="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/6190858.stm"]sent[/URL] advisors to Georgia long before this crap started going down. Also consider eyewitness accounts of U.S. troops already [URL="http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=89"]fighting[/URL] in Georgia. Then you also have reports of the U.S. Marines Corps [URL="http://www.marines.mil/units/marforres/Pages/CeremonyopensImmediateResponse2008.aspx"]training[/URL] the Georgian military. You seem like a reasonable guy, SGG. And you obviously follow this stuff. [B]Can't you admit that there have been calculated attempts by our government to back Russia into a corner by gobbling up former Soviet republics into NATO for God knows what purpose?[/B][/QUOTE]

Wait a second. Your other posts were within the world of reason. If I am reading this post, it is well outside the world of reason. Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959]The Warsaw Pact was dissolved, but NATO sure as hell wasn't. NATO, whose sole function was to repel Soviet aggression, is trying to expand. What for? The Soviet Union collapsed, and even made strides toward implementing capitalism for their citizens. But it's main foe never went anywhere. In fact, it's re-arming, growing in the number of its member nations, and setting up new defensive installations on the edge of the Russian border. And yet you're mystified as to why Putin and the Russians are reacting so harshly? I'll ask the question I posed earlier: What would the U.S. reaction be if the "Evil Empire" was carrying on like this just south of our border, or it's navy was cruising around at will in the Gulf of Mexico?[/QUOTE]

NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959]You express doubts that our government is controlled by 'evil values' or that it's been hijacked by a 'monolithic force'. I don't know that I'd classify it as "evil". Misguided and bordering on suicidal, yes. But not evil. [B]And I'm not sure why you find it so hard to believe that "one set of people" are in complete control of things.[/B] There are 'political winds,' so to speak. Trends that periodically lead us in one direction or the other, depending on who has power. This particular 'tough foreign policy' trend got started with Theodore Roosevelt and his "Great White Fleet," and continued with Woodrow Wilson's involvment in World War I. Then it kicked into high-gear with the military-industrial complex that Eisenhower warned the American people of in his farewell address to the nation as his second term came to an end.[/QUOTE]

What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view. People on the fringes of the left and right tend to view the government as one giant corrupt force controlled by a few select individuals (in that "V is for Vendetta" sense).

In reality, our government and its foreign policy is influenced by millions of people. The President often defers to advisors, who receive reports and recommendations from subordinates, and the Vice President. The President also considers "special interests," whether those be NGOs advocating on behalf of certain humanitarian causes or greedy corporations advocating on behalf of their shareholders. The President also has to consider how his policies will be viewed by the general public - that pesky group of 300 million that has the power to vote his ass, or his friends' asses, out of office.

After the President formulates policy, he has to go consult that pesky group called Congress. Yes, the President may make unilateral moves, but the big pricey decisions have to be vetted by Congress. Congress can be spineless, but the President rarely disregards it. Moreover, Congress is made up of about 500 congressmen and thousands upon thousands of staffers. On top of that, you've got tens of thousands of lobbyists representing both "good" and "bad" special interests effectively giving money to congressmen for votes.

In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959]For the record, and forgive me if I gave this impression, I don't believe Putin's response in Georgia was initiated by our war against Iraq. I just think it has made Russia nervous -- just as it made us nervous when they tried to use Cuba as a launching pad for some ICBMs back in 1962. To the contrary, Putin (no longer the president, by the way) and his government were fully aware of Georgia's intention to put the smackdown on South Ossetia. That's why they had their own troops [URL="http://www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2008/07/10/9971.shtml"]positioned[/URL] on the Georgian border in anticipation of the hostilities before Saakasvili's invasion of the breakaway province ever took place. [B]That Georgia started this conflict is not in dispute.[/B] But I also believe Washington knew precisely what was about to take place. With all of the spy satellites and surveillance measures we take in that region of the world, there's no way the Bush administration was in the dark about what Saakashvili was prepared to do.[/QUOTE]

I can't agree with the bolded part above. I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;467959]Far more Americans fall into the 'we can do no wrong' camp than mine.[/QUOTE]

Maybe, maybe not. I've been living in college towns for the past few years and I'm surrounded by the "I don't eat chicken because I'm not a murderer like you, the U.S.-Israeli government (singular, not plural) masterminded 9/11 so it could take over the world, America is nothing but a bunch of dumbasses, the communists had it right, unlike the rest of America I see reality and am not blinded by the man" crowd.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

In the words of saden. I have SGG's post above and I approve this message.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;467975]. . . to suggest that our recent actions in Georgia and with NATO's missile defense would provoke Russia into an all-out war with us is [B]to drastically overestimate both the threat Russia is capable of carrying out on us[/B] and drastically overestimate their likely response to such endeavors.

Simply put, we haven't pissed them off nearly enough, NOWHERE CLOSE, for them to think launching an all-out war is in their best interests.[/QUOTE]

Schneed, the bolded comment perfectly illustrates this cavalier attitude that I spoke of among many Americans when it comes to war. Attempting to diminish what the Russians could do to us if fighting ever broke out is typical of those who don't actually have to face the prospect of fighting in such a conflict.

Do you know what the casualty counts would be if we turned our armies against Russia or if they turned against us? Even if, as you imply, we would ultimately "win" in a showdown with Russia, how many of our 130,000 troops already over there would be lost if the fecal matter started hitting the rotary device? 30,000? 50,000? Those might figures might be drastically low.

Our troops are over-extended, over-worked, and most of them are long overdue for leave time. We've had to borrow from our forces in Afganistan to allow for the 'surge' in Iraq. Now, we're losing ground in Afganistan. Americans at home are weary of the Iraq war, and polls have consistently shown that the public no longer supports it. You're telling me that none of this matters, and that the threat of Russia is overestimated?

Our military has been bogged down in the middle east for five years now -- and the Russians know it. Don't be so quick to assume that they are "nowhere close" to being pissed off enough to [URL="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/26/international/i115324D10.DTL"]start something.[/URL] Didn't you see what Medvedev just said recently? That they're not afraid of another Cold War? How about the U.S. naval ships carrying aid to Georgia that suddenly decided to [URL="http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315491"]turn around[/URL]? You think they were concerned with Russia's possible intentions?

Napolean was arguably the greatest military leader who ever lived. He was defeated by the Russians. Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht was the absolute best fighting force ever assembled in the history of human civilization. In the final months that closed out World War II, historians have said that 75% of them were killed not by the United States -- but by the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate those people, Schneed.

One more thing, -- do you really want that man from Crawford, Texas leading us into a war with Russia? How about Barack Obama, with all of the experience he has in situations like this?

Sometimes it's better to play it smart, than it is to play it tough.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;468159]I would like to know how exactly you know that Putin/Russian action in Georgia is a response to "policies set forth by the chickenhawks." Unless you are Vlad himself, you cannot tell me what is motivating Russian action in Georgia.[/QUOTE]

You don't have to be a mind reader in order to figure out what's going on here. Russia came to the aid of South Ossetia because their people have cultural and ethnic ties to Russia, and they prefer the Russians to the Georgians. I think at least a part of Putin's brazenness can be a show of force to the United States. A subtle reminder, if you will, that Russians have their sphere of influence too. The policies of the chickenhawks are what had U.S. military advisors and troops training the Georgian military, and it justifiably irritated the Russians.

[QUOTE]Also, I think it is noteworthy that the Russians put the smack down on the Chechen rebels well before the chickenhawks came into power. I suppose they were just anticipating that Bush would get elected, fill his cabinet with chickenhawks, invade Iraq, and put an anti-missile system in Poland? . . . Putin seems to long for the days of the USSR - that beast that [I]openly and explicitly[/I] declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination. [/QUOTE]

None of this is to say that Putin, Medvedev, and the Russians government are perfect little angels. As I mentioned earlier, there's a lot of gray area here. It's not a black and white issue. Certainly there's a history of aggression with the rise of Communism in Russia. But the point I'm trying to make is that with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the arrogant interventionist foreign policies of our government have done more to alienate the Russians than to accept them with open arms.

[QUOTE]Wait a second . . . Are you suggesting that our government is deliberately trying to start another Cold War?[/QUOTE]

Yes, that's what I'm suggesting. I don't know what's so difficult to grasp here. As I've demonstrated multiple times now, setting up missle defense systems at the edge of the Russian border, and snatching up former Soviet Republic after former Soviet Republic into NATO is an alarming action to the Russians which they perceive to be a threat.

Just as we would see it if the situation were reversed. I've posted this three times now, and no one seems to have an answer for it, so I'll say it again: What would the United States do if the Russians had 130,000 troops just to the south of us, if they had established anti-missle systems just off international waters to our west, and if the Russian navy were patroling the Gulf of Mexico, acting as though they had the authority to permit or deny access to the gulf at their sole discretion. We would be livid, and rightly so. That would be seen as an act of war.

[QUOTE]NATO is a defensive alliance and, unlike the Warsaw Pact, did not regularly engage in offensive operations against "innocent states." Moreover, NATO and the Warsaw Pact were totally different animals. NATO is an alliance of independent states, formed for defensive purposes. The Warsaw Pact was a sham; Moscow controlled every move, decision, and action of the Pact. Moreover, there were even talks of Russia joining NATO. So, do you really think Russia should view NATO as some threat that might ultimately parade through Moscow some day?[/QUOTE]

Notice how you're referring to the Warsaw Pact in the past tense and NATO in the present? Again, if the shoe were on the other foot, and the Allies agreed to disband NATO, how would we view it if Russia kept their alliance intact and began to coax former NATO countries to their side? While I don't believe we will one day "parade through Moscow" in triumph, what's critical to understand is that the Russians may see it that way. They perceive our actions as a threat.

[QUOTE]What do you mean by "one set of people." If you mean a bunch of old, rich, white dudes smoking cigars and pulling levers behind a giant curtain, then no I don't share your view . . . In sum, fortunately, there are so damn many people trying to influence policy, that no single group dominates.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not 4 or 5 guys that has complete control of things. Remember my statement earlier when I said that this trend "permeates our government's outlook towards foreign policy to this very day by politicians on both sides of the aisle" ?? I see the military-industrial complex as the prime culprit -- but it's not just a tiny little faction pulling the strings. It's a widespread, elaborate web of corporate lobbyists, and defense contractors pushing each and every congressman to spend billions developing tanks, missles, jets, naval warships and other weapons systems, and they do it in every single district, democrat or republican. It has been said that the B-2 Stealth Bomber has a part made in each of the 50 states -- so that when the time comes to vote for more spending, no member of congress would deny their district a piece of the pie. With each new "crisis" that developes around the world comes more cries for U.S. intervention, calls for more defense spending on the part of our elected officials, and feeds the defense contractors with new work orders, massive contracts, and more jobs for each congressman's district who in turn demands a piece of the action. This creates a never-ending cycle which ultimately ends up obligating our service men and women to every corner of the earth wherever trouble pops up, often resulting in their deaths.

Imagine if every representative or senator who votes in favor of war had to personally inform the family of a soldier or marine that their loved one is now dead.

[QUOTE]I don't know who "started" the conflict. Some say the Russians did and others say the Georgians did. Russia can be compared to a guy that starts banging his neighbor's wife (i.e., S. Ossetia), the neighbor (i.e., Georgia) finds out and smacks his wife, and Russia then firebombs his neighbor's house. Russia has been trying to provoke Georgia into a military confrontation for quite some time. Moreover, Georgia never attacked Russia. Georgia attacked militants within its own borders.[/QUOTE]

What you call "militants" is actually an independent nation which effectively broke away from Geogia in the early 1990's. Now, of course, you, the Georgians, and the neocons in this country don't see it that way. But the Ossetians sure do. If they want to break away and live independently of Georgia, who is the Bush administration or Saakashvili to tell them otherwise? Isn't that what the Americans did 200 years ago when they told the King of England to go kiss off?

This might open up another can of worms, but don't you believe there is a fundamental right of individuals or groups of individuals to disassociate or secede from a union in which they feel their interests are no longer adequately served?

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;468565]This might open up another can of worms, but don't you believe there is a fundamental right of individuals or groups of individuals to disassociate or secede from a union in which they feel their interests are no longer adequately served?[/QUOTE]

Ok, I'll bite. How do you think this would apply to the Civil War?

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven]
As I've demonstrated multiple times now, setting up missle defense systems at the edge of the Russian border, and snatching up former Soviet Republic after former Soviet Republic into NATO is an alarming action to the Russians which they perceive to be a threat.

Just as we would see it if the situation were reversed. I've posted this three times now, and no one seems to have an answer for it, so I'll say it again: What would the United States do if the Russians had 130,000 troops just to the south of us, if they had established anti-missle systems just off international waters to our west, and if the Russian navy were patroling the Gulf of Mexico, acting as though they had the authority to permit or deny access to the gulf at their sole discretion. We would be livid, and rightly so. That would be seen as an act of war.
[/quote]

You are absolutely right. Isn't the Monroe doctrine still in effect? I'm sure Russia has a similar doctrine. Our actions in Georgia/Poland are acts of war. What bothers me, is that our government HAS to know this. So, I wonder, are they that confident (arrogant), or are they simply counting on Russia to remain idle?

Also, Georgia/Ossetia is incredibly similar to Russia/Chechnya. Nobody had a problem with Russia suppressing Chechens -- after all, they are terrorists, right? It's quite hypocritical of Russia to have a problem with Georgia and its actions towards Ossetia. It seems like they are just exploiting an opportunity at a land/power grab.

You have articulated my feelings almost perfectly with your posts. It would take quite some time for me to say it as well as you have.

If it isn't too confusing, I've also agreed with many of SGG's points. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

To break away you have to be part of Georgia. Georgia as no more clam to these states than Russia has claim on Georgia.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

When its all said and done both the US and Russia know that a war would hurt both side no matter who wins. This stuff has been going on sense the last WW and will for a long time to come but at the end of the day nothing will happen. Maybe that sounds to simple but it how I feel and I would put myself in the somewhat uninformed on this matter.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven;468560]Schneed, the bolded comment perfectly illustrates this cavalier attitude that I spoke of among many Americans when it comes to war. Attempting to diminish what the Russians could do to us if fighting ever broke out is typical of those who don't actually have to face the prospect of fighting in such a conflict.

Do you know what the casualty counts would be if we turned our armies against Russia or if they turned against us? Even if, as you imply, we would ultimately "win" in a showdown with Russia, how many of our 130,000 troops already over there would be lost if the fecal matter started hitting the rotary device? 30,000? 50,000? Those might figures might be drastically low.

Our troops are over-extended, over-worked, and most of them are long overdue for leave time. We've had to borrow from our forces in Afganistan to allow for the 'surge' in Iraq. Now, we're losing ground in Afganistan. Americans at home are weary of the Iraq war, and polls have consistently shown that the public no longer supports it. You're telling me that none of this matters, and that the threat of Russia is overestimated?

Our military has been bogged down in the middle east for five years now -- and the Russians know it. Don't be so quick to assume that they are "nowhere close" to being pissed off enough to [URL="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/26/international/i115324D10.DTL"]start something.[/URL] Didn't you see what Medvedev just said recently? That they're not afraid of another Cold War? How about the U.S. naval ships carrying aid to Georgia that suddenly decided to [URL="http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315491"]turn around[/URL]? You think they were concerned with Russia's possible intentions?

Napolean was arguably the greatest military leader who ever lived. He was defeated by the Russians. Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht was the absolute best fighting force ever assembled in the history of human civilization. In the final months that closed out World War II, historians have said that 75% of them were killed not by the United States -- but by the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate those people, Schneed.

One more thing, -- do you really want that man from Crawford, Texas leading us into a war with Russia? How about Barack Obama, with all of the experience he has in situations like this?

Sometimes it's better to play it smart, than it is to play it tough.[/quote]

I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

Man with all this talk I bet next week the draft will start and the training of troops will begin. Mother and daughters will hit the factories making planes and tanks. We will be scraping all of our extra metal to build our fleet of ships.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=mheisig;468575]Ok, I'll bite. How do you think this would apply to the Civil War?[/QUOTE]

Yeah, this is a pretty wild tangent -- but down to the perceptual level, don't we as individuals have the right to disassociate with whomever we want? If I feel someone with whom I have a relationship isn't holding up their end of the bargain, I have the right to go elsewhere, do I not?

Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War), but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=GhettoDogAllStars;468576]You are absolutely right. Isn't the Monroe doctrine still in effect? I'm sure Russia has a similar doctrine. Our actions in Georgia/Poland are acts of war. What bothers me, is that our government HAS to know this. So, I wonder, are they that confident (arrogant), or are they simply counting on Russia to remain idle?

Also, Georgia/Ossetia is incredibly similar to Russia/Chechnya. Nobody had a problem with Russia suppressing Chechens -- after all, they are terrorists, right? It's quite hypocritical of Russia to have a problem with Georgia and its actions towards Ossetia. It seems like they are just exploiting an opportunity at a land/power grab.

You have articulated my feelings almost perfectly with your posts. It would take quite some time for me to say it as well as you have.

If it isn't too confusing, I've also agreed with many of SGG's points. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.[/QUOTE]


Thanks for the compliment. I've read as much as I can on this subject, and I try to look at it from both angles, getting the viewpoints from people with opinions that differ from mine.

There's no easy answer here. Without a doubt, the Russians were lying in wait just looking for a reason to turn the Georgians over their knee and give them an old-fashioned ass whoopin'.

But it's also undeniable that Saakashvili knew that the United States would cry foul, and give the American taxpayer yet another crisis we can shell out our hard-earned money for.

That's why I favor a foreign policy of non-intervention. No more rescues of oppressed people from dictators who should be doing the overthrowing themselves. No more billions of dollars given out to nations that hate us. No more playing the role of policeman of the world. No more wandering into sh*tstorms we can't find our way out of. From now on, everybody's on their own.

We have our own problems to deal with.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Schneed10;468611]I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.[/QUOTE]

As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Beemnseven;468638]Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the [B]War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War)[/B], but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.[/QUOTE]

Wow, did you really just call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? I have so many issues with that one; the least serious of which is that the South fired the first shot.

Also, are you saying that, if I so please, I should be able to declare my independence from the United States because I am dissatisfied with my government?

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[QUOTE=Sheriff Gonna Getcha;468868]Wow, did you really just call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? I have so many issues with that one; the least serious of which is that the South fired the first shot.

Also, are you saying that, if I so please, I should be able to declare my independence from the United States because I am dissatisfied with my government?[/QUOTE]

Absolutely. To both questions.

Not really into the game are you?

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven;468933]Absolutely. To both questions.[/quote]

Do you honestly believe the Civil War was a mistake?

Also, there would be chaos if anyone could declare independence. Hawaii, those nuts in the Michigan militias, and a bunch of others would secede from the U.S. Pockets inside of states, cities, and neighborhoods would be independent countries. Needless to say, everything would be f'ed up.

[quote=Beemnseven;468933]Not really into the game are you?[/quote]

Huh? I'm watching it, recording it, and commenting on it in the thread.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=Beemnseven;468773]As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.[/quote]

We never should have been in Europe, helping to set up NATO, during the Cold War when the USSR was publicly saying it's goal was world domination?

You're losing me. You've made some good points in this thread, but you're starting to run yourself out of the inning here.

Besides, even if you don't agree with the politics behind our presence in Georgia and other parts of Europe, you have to acknowledge the immense peace of mind a strategically placed missile defense system brings to us here at home.

We know that Iran has no problems dealing with terrorists. We also know they are working towards nuclear capabilities. Should our diplomacy/tough talk fail to persuade them to give up their pursuits, it's a rather smart contingency plan to be able to protect Europe, Israel, and the US mainland by having the ability to shoot any ICBM's out of the sky.

If it's not Iran, it could be North Korea. If it's not them, it could be someone else who has an axe to grind with us.

And please don't suggest we shouldn't be protecting Europe or Israel in the first place, because then you'd render yourself entirely irrelevant.

Re: russia/ georgia
 

[quote=firstdown;468631]Man with all this talk I bet next week the draft will start and the training of troops will begin. Mother and daughters will hit the factories making planes and tanks. We will be scraping all of our extra metal to build our fleet of ships.[/quote]

Now that you mention it, after watching the game tonight the Redskins might serve Washington more effectively being drafted into service of their country than playing like this?