LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteAre you thinking of the Jewish Task Force?Originally Posted by medvedev
Those people are so out there that if they had been born as white gentiles, it is not exaggeration they would be wearing swastika armbands.
What makes you feel that the US is the last word on morals?
Iraq should be one of the many examples!
And yet no WW III!
Don't be an alarmist!
UN is ineffective not because it is ineffective as such. It is ineffective of the Big 5 and who are responsible for all the miseries of the world!!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Are you thinking of the Jewish Task Force?
Those people are so out there that if they had been born as white gentiles, it is not exaggeration they would be wearing swastika armbands.
The big five are responsible for all the miseries in the world? Oh to have such power! I am afraid local tribes can still dish out misery quite well without the big five even noticing. They do make a convenient target to blame however to distract from local failures of culture or governance...
The SWO
It is so cute.
Worked in the UN?
How much are you aware of the Big 5 working?
Every issue referred to the UNSC is decided by the Big 5 and their veto!
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Nah, unproportional would have been to level Tblisi in response. And a few dozen strategic sorties could have done that, easily. An overreaction would have been to drop a paratrooper division or two into Tbilisi and enforce regime change, while securing South Ossetian and Abchasian secession at the same time.
The war is actually rather restrained in my opinion, considering Georgia was violating its treaties with both South Ossetia (1996 memorandum) and Russia (1993 CIS accession). Push Georgians beyond declared border; create buffer zone beyond; bomb a handful targets that could threaten Russian assets - seriously, that is a restrained answer. Especially as they've so far only used a single ground Army, a handful substrategic air assets, and a single real sortie of the Black Sea fleet in a blockade movement.
True. And he has single-handedly destroyed all near- to mid-future prospects for any additional CIS countries to join NATO, judging by the European responses. As well as completely destroying any notion in its neighbor states that the US would support them, or even care about them.
It seems fairly obvious to me that Russia was hoping for a chance to get this war on. If reports are really accurate it was probably right for them to try to protect civilians and their own troops considering they took losses in the initial fighting. Still, they clearly wanted more than that, and Im sure they only signed the ceasefire so as to preserve public image back in Russia and to appease the rest of the world. If there hadn't been such a public outcry all of Georgia would have been taken over by now.
Georgia was greatly to blame though for its aggressive tactics used in S.O (even though the casuality numbers are uncertain). Also, it did not tell the US or any allies about the plan and then asked for international assistance. Surely they would have expected a Russian response.
Saaskavili is a cunning man and he does a good job kissing butts and playing up to other people's politics, especially NATO members, but I think he has good intentions overall. Hes a hard man to read.
But Putin is quite crafty himself.
As in most conflicts, neither side is completely correct. In the case of lesser of two evils--I would say Georgia though.
Last edited by The Black Ghost; 14 Aug 08, at 02:11.
The greatest weapon is the truth
I'm not going to defend Georgia's ill-prepared attack, but do you really need to bring ancient tribal/ethnic slurs to the discussion? After all, the Russians spent a long time as doormats for the Tatars, and one can tell endless stories of how the Russians set new standards for grovelling.
i had earlier posted this on another thread but i feel it is more appropriate here.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
just replace NATO with Russia and vice versa, Serbia with Georgia, kla with south ossetian rebels,... you get my driftThe KLA attempted to wrest Kosovo from Serbia and Serbia sent in the army. Without bothering with a UN resolution Nato bombed them out and advanced through Kovoso up to what is now called 'Serbia proper'.
At the time Russia complained bitterly that a sovereign nation's borders were being violated by the 'international community' or by what the Serbs called the 'Nato fascist aggressor'.
Moscow called on the Nato powers to halt the bombing which killed several thousand Serb civilians and which targeted among other things a television station.
Without dout Nato descended into farcical claims of 100,000 Kosovan men being killed and of football stadiums full of prisoners. It was rubbish.
This spring the US and most of the EU nations recognised Kosovan independence and thus legitimised the changing of a sovereign state's borders through violence - their own.
Is there such a thing right or wrong for a conflict like this? It's just yet another game for the ones in power.
Well, if you want an answer, whoever wins the media war would be "right"~
天下兴亡，匹夫有责
I do get your drift. What I'm confused about is that you seem to be justifying as correct the Russian actions by NATO's prior actions, yet decrying NATO's actions
NATO's bad actions make Russia's good?
stop saying that this aint a joke 2000 people died in 2 freaking days man 2 days man how can georgia forgive that 2000 civiliansYou are right.
Georgia got kicked in the gollies!)
NATO and the US' bad actions does not make any action good.I do get your drift. What I'm confused about is that you seem to be justifying as correct the Russian actions by NATO's prior actions, yet decrying NATO's actions
NATO's bad actions make Russia's good?
It only justifies such actions.
However, that is not what rankles.
What rankles is the Holier than Thou attitude!
There is a saying in my part of the world - Ekto chori, phir sina jori?
Loosely translated it mean - first you steal and then get pious?
How is it that what the US and NATO does is like the Infallibility of the Pope?
And everyone who opposes are Sinners?
Let those without sin cast the first stone...
What if Russia did an Iraq and then hung Saaskavelli? At least, they are not doing that even though both are the faces of the same coin!
US was not justified in Iraq. They are not the second coming of Christ to cleanse this world!
Last edited by Ray; 14 Aug 08, at 10:02.
"Some have learnt many Tricks of sly Evasion, Instead of Truth they use Equivocation, And eke it out with mental Reservation, Which is to good Men an Abomination."
I don't have to attend every argument I'm invited to.
HAKUNA MATATA
Holier than thou?
I'm just confused how Russia can invade a neighbour, (yes, South Ossetia is a part of Georgia, far more so than say Kashmir is a part of India), destroy their infrastructure, occupy more than half their country, and somehow it ends up as America's fault.
Again Sir, just because someone, somewhere, sometime, did something bad, doesn't mean everyone else gets to do the bad thing as well.
Nobody is "right". Saakashvili made a big mistake.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Share this thread with friends: