russia/ georgia

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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.

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.

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 openly and explicitly declared in numerous manifestos that its goal was world domination.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

[mheisig]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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?

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

[GhettoDogAllStars]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[saden1]

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

[firstdown]

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.

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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 start something. 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 turn around? 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.

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.

[firstdown]

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by mheisig

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

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by GhettoDogAllStars

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.

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.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Schneed10

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.

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.

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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?

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

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?

Absolutely. To both questions.

Not really into the game are you?

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Absolutely. To both questions.

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.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Not really into the game are you?

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

[Schneed10]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

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.

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.

[Hog1]

Originally Posted by firstdown

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.

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?