russia/ georgia

[saden1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

Saden, what up. Were are you getting your news from today? Does anyone even know how this war got started? Even the French are backing Bush and his humanitarian efforts. Well maybe, I don't know that for sure but it did sound good. I know Bush did talk to the French (what ever that guys name is). I think Bush even called Obama to see if he wanted to fly over to Georgian to just tell the guys to all get along.

Here's the back story. The Georgina president's rhetoric is surpassed only by his imagined allies and capabilities. No one in the west gives a rats ass about his two bit nation and no one will certainly lift a finger on their behalf to oppose Russia. The cold war maybe over and Russia isn't what it use to be but Russia is not a nation to trifler with. Not only that but they have as much claim to the disputed region as Russia. Also, as much as they would like you to believe Georgia isn't a democracy.

CIA Factbook:

...An attempt by the incumbent Georgian government to manipulate national legislative elections in November 2003 touched off widespread protests that led to the resignation of Eduard SHEVARDNADZE, president since 1995. New elections in early 2004 swept Mikheil SAAKASHVILI into power along with his National Movement party. Progress on market reforms and democratization has been made in the years since independence, but this progress has been complicated by two ethnic conflicts in the breakaway regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. These two territories remain outside the control of the central government and are ruled by de facto, unrecognized governments, supported by Russia. Russian-led peacekeeping operations continue in both regions.

[That Guy]

rumors the russians gave the south ossetian seperatists mortars (russian peacekeepers supplying "terrorists" with weapons) and told them to fire them... also rumors russia might be looking to capture the georgian pipeline access to europe or their port (for future military use, since the ukraine is kicking them out of their port base in a couple years).

just saying, it took months to build up those armored divisions on the border. this was planned.

as far as the draft and ordering soldiers, wtf are you smoking? i seriously doubt we're looking for armed conflict with russia proper. please put the pipe down.

[saden1]

Regardless of what the Russians are doing, South Ossetians are rejecting Georgian advances for reunification. Get a clue, they don't to be part of your country! Rumor also has it that South Ossetia has oil. Facts have it that Russia already had troops there for "peace keeping."

You know, if Israel can do it, United States can do it, why not Russia? China? Anybody else for that matter? If you got the power flaunt it!

[That Guy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Regardless of what the Russians are doing, South Ossetians are rejecting Georgian advances for reunification. Get a clue, they don't to be part of your country! Rumor also has it that South Ossetia has oil. Facts have it that Russia already had troops there for "peace keeping."

You know, if Israel can do it, United States can do it, why not Russia? China? Anybody else for that matter? If you got the power flaunt it!

yeah, i was saying those "peacekeepers" that were already there pre-invasion may have given the seperatists weapons and instructed them to use them to provoke a georgian response and give russia a reason to start a tank stampede...

at this point it's sort of hard to tell what's been happening on the ground in exact detail though.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by That Guy

yeah, i was saying those "peacekeepers" that were already there pre-invasion may have given the seperatists weapons and instructed them to use them to provoke a georgian response and give russia a reason to start a tank stampede...

at this point it's sort of hard to tell what's been happening on the ground in exact detail though.

You mean to tell me they set the whole thing up and went to war under false pretense?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

Regardless of what the Russians are doing, South Ossetians are rejecting Georgian advances for reunification. Get a clue, they don't to be part of your country! Rumor also has it that South Ossetia has oil. Facts have it that Russia already had troops there for "peace keeping."

You know, if Israel can do it, United States can do it, why not Russia? China? Anybody else for that matter? If you got the power flaunt it!

What an amazingly salient point. Why does this perspective constantly elude 99% of Americans?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

What an amazingly salient point. Why does this perspective constantly elude 99% of Americans?

I think that concept eludes closer to 100% of Americans (and everyone else around the world for that matter). Even those who champion the virtues of the UN want the U.S. to use its power unilaterally when the mood so strikes.

Take Kosovo and Bosnia as an example. For years, the left had talked about the need to work through international organizations to accomplish our foreign policy objectives because, after all, one day we would no longer be top dog. Then along came the breakup of Yugoslavia and some horrific crimes against humanity. The left wanted to take action but, alas, Russia threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of force against their Serb allies. So what did the left do? They told the UN to go f' itself and bombed the Serbs without UN approval.

I don't mean to pick on the left. The right tends to care even less about the UN and international law.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

I think that concept eludes closer to 100% of Americans (and everyone else around the world for that matter). Even those who champion the virtues of the UN want the U.S. to use its power unilaterally when the mood so strikes.

Take Kosovo and Bosnia as an example. For years, the left had talked about the need to work through international organizations to accomplish our foreign policy objectives because, after all, one day we would no longer be top dog. Then along came the breakup of Yugoslavia and some horrific crimes against humanity. The left wanted to take action but, alas, Russia threatened to veto any UN Security Council resolutions authorizing the use of force against their Serb allies. So what did the left do? They told the UN to go f' itself and bombed the Serbs without UN approval.

I don't mean to pick on the left. The right tends to care even less about the UN and international law.

My point in agreeing with saden1 is that you never hear the end of individuals in this country talking about how we should just "turn that desert into a sheet of glass" and how we could/should take down anybody that disagrees with us. But let some other country exert that same self-granted moral authority over another and we as citizens tend to get up in arms.

I'm not saying that Russia is right or wrong with their present course of action, but I think that if you look at the situation objectively, the conflict between Georgia and Russia is, from a very simplistic standpoint, fundamentally similar to the one we have with Iraq. Both countries (Russia and the US) are using a perceived injustice to justify their larger goal of regime change in another country. We can hide behind western morality all we like but the simple fact is that we have customarily used our superior military force to make changes to governments with views contrary to our own.

Were i able to read in Russian, I have no doubt that state-backed Newspapers/Media talk about how it is important to crush the terrorists (or whatever buzzword the Russian govt has chosen to identify those with whom it disagrees). I'm sure the drumbeat throughout Moscow right now is remarkably similar to the one heard in Washington during May of 2003. But because the aggressor in this case is ANYONE other than the United States, Great Britain or Israel, they are of course wrong.

I'm not being unpatriotic, I'm merely pointing out the extreme irony of the pot calling the kettle "black."

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

We can hide behind western morality all we like but the simple fact is that we have customarily used our superior military force to make changes to governments with views contrary to our own

To be clear-not to you, but to others who may think so-this did not begin with W. Not talking about what other countries have done, using our military might to "encourage" changes worlwide (good or bad) is something we have done for decades if not longer.


Model Citizen Zero Discipline....Panama! Panama!

[djnemo65]

Given how important this issue is it's a shame that this thread was framed as an attack on Bush, who really is a very minor player in this fiasco.

[KLHJ2]

In 2004 the military was considering reinstituting the Draft.

U.S. considering mandatory draft - Opinion

And again in 2007

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft - CNN.com

In 2007 it was explained why they didn't.

US not considering draft: Pentagon

Conclusion: It is not a strectch of the imagination that reinstituting the Draft is considered by our government and military from time to time. However, they always revert back to the "An all volunteer Army is a better Army" theory.

[SmootSmack]

Originally Posted by Angry

In 2004 the military was considering reinstituting the Draft.

U.S. considering mandatory draft - Opinion

And again in 2007

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft - CNN.com

In 2007 it was explained why they didn't.

US not considering draft: Pentagon

Conclusion: It is not a strectch of the imagination that reinstituting the Draft is considered by our government and military from time to time. However, they always revert back to the "An all volunteer Army is a better Army" theory.

Good information. Thanks

[70Chip]

From the U.S standpoint, the main strategic goal should be to prevent the alliance of the two Fascist Powers-China and Russia. Paging Richard Nixon.

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Angry

In 2004 the military was considering reinstituting the Draft.

U.S. considering mandatory draft - Opinion

And again in 2007

Iraq war czar: Consider a draft - CNN.com

In 2007 it was explained why they didn't.

US not considering draft: Pentagon

Conclusion: It is not a strectch of the imagination that reinstituting the Draft is considered by our government and military from time to time. However, they always revert back to the "An all volunteer Army is a better Army" theory.

The issues gets brought up on a regular basis by, usually by Rep. Rangel or someone else. It always gets defeated and isn't considered a viable option by hardly any military experts.

The modern U.S. military isn't what is was back in WW2. The amount of training and time that goes into a U.S. soldier is astronomical. They don't just grab a few guys, show them which end of the gun to point toward the enemy and send them on their way. These guys are operating complex pieces of technology on a daily basis and require an incredible amount of training.

I'm not saying it's impossible, but reinstating the draft is VERY unlikely. It's usually brought up as a way to strike some fear into people so we don't get into a war or extend ourselves. Kind of along the lines of, "Oh, you want to go to war huh? How about we reinstate...the DRAFT!" And Rangel jumps out of a closet waving his arms...

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by mheisig

They don't just grab a few guys, show them which end of the gun to point toward the enemy and send them on their way.

Unless they score poory on their ASVAB, then that's pretty much what happens.