Thread: GEORGIA AN EXAMPLE !!! The BEAR is out of HIBERNATION

Just gotta love the Shakespeare insertion Ray

"U.S. policy expectation. Support is a matter of observation - if your house is on fire empirical evidence will do"

Your "observation" of American policy isn't remotely adequate. Empirical evidence of any form pales compared to the stated intentions of our, or ANY, government.

This is the national security strategy and objectives of the George W. Bush administration. Start here-

White House National Security Strategy

Your opinion might or might not matter, but when stating the policy of any nation it's helpful to support your "observation" with comments by relevant leaders, policy position papers, and all the other documented resources so readily available.

Make use of them, please, to make your case or back off your contention. You've done neither and carry no cachet of credibility here.

Start building some.

[QUOTE=Ray;535562]

Can you shove your US uber alles nonsense?

Thats funny, I pointed out how 48 nations gave the nod to the US for Iraq (49 w/ the US) making the second biggest event in human history as far as collective acts are concerned. The US stood aside and let the EU try to resolve the Iranian nuclear issue for a couple of years. We fund the majority of the UN, give the most aid and charity belong to numerous intyernational treaties and your still on your kick.

US is appearing very pathetic in case you did not realise. All gas and no go. Did you not see Saaskavelli practically weeping at the Press conference which Markel?

How exactly is the US appearing pathetic? Russia lashes out and now Georgia and the Ukraine are shoe ins for NATO, Poland signed the missile deal, Belarus ordered its government to kindle friendly relations with the West. Russia blatant over reaction means my country will end up getting more F-22, DDG's SSNs etc further cementing its military lead. The US is sending its military personel to Georgia and Russia is standing aside. Humanitarian misison or not uniformed US personnel are landing in the middle of a Russian war at airports we demanded they keep open. Exactly where has the US suffered?

Ask Iran, North Korea, Pakistan who is dominating! They are no friends of mine, but I sure believe in level playing fields.

No you don't, cut the crap. No military man believes in level playing fields. Your were professionally trained to look for weakness and exploit it.

I presume you take it that the US invaded Iraq with kid gloves, right?

There is no doubt the force unleashed against Iraq was just a fraction of what we could have done.

Chum, while George Bush is the best thing that could happen to India, it does not mean I sell my soul!

Or do you want us to be your next generation of slaves, this time not in slave ships, but First Class on Air America?:P

How exactly will increasing ties with the US enslave India? While the US has a long an infamous career in using non-democracies. It partners with functioning democracies. You will be very hard pressed to find a single example of the US mistreating any functioning democracy it is allied with.

Please understand that there are people, beyond the shores of the USA, who also live!

And your point is?

Read Shylock's statement -

To bait fish withal: if it will feed nothing else,
it will feed my revenge. He hath disgraced me, and
hindered me half a million; laughed at my losses,
mocked at my gains, scorned my nation, thwarted my
bargains, cooled my friends, heated mine
enemies; and what's his reason? I am a Jew. Hath
not a Jew eyes? hath not a Jew hands, organs,
dimensions, senses, affections, passions? fed with
the same food, hurt with the same weapons, subject
to the same diseases, healed by the same means,
warmed and cooled by the same winter and summer, as a Christian is? If you prick us, do we not bleed?
if you tickle us, do we not laugh? if you poison
us, do we not die? and if you wrong us, shall we not
revenge? If we are like you in the rest, we will
resemble you in that. If a Jew wrong a Christian,
what is his humility? Revenge. If a Christian
wrong a Jew, what should his sufferance be by
Christian example? Why, revenge. The villany you
teach me, I will execute, and it shall go hard but I
will better the instruction.

I sure hope you have had some education in literature or else this will be casting pearls before swine!

in so far as Russians go, I'll borrow an American saying,"Karma's a b&tch." If Russia didn't want its former vassals defecting they should have treated them better.

That is the sad part.

Since you are blind, you are not realising that is exactly what Russia is doing and you are all taking a running jump!

The sad part is you do not see how Russia is viewed by her neighbors and why they fear her. Your blinded by your bias.

Speaking as a Pole who's county has not existed at some points due to Russian influence (though not solely) I fully support zraver last comment - I fear Russia.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Bottom line: U.S. is at the crossroads - there's a finite amount influence and resources to go around. Middle East is far more important in the next few decades. There are politicians striving for power and influence to get them to the top around Russia's borders - the best card they have is "we are seeking help of the U.S., vote for us." Once that is accomplished they do what they want to line their pockets. You'd think this happened too many times for the White House to know better. It does come out of our paychecks nonetheless.

I love the take though its very thought out. The connection with the lobbyist is whats getting me. Ergo he(Shaunemann) personally mediated between the Administration, Sakashvili and Yakobashvili(Georgian minister of integration of Abkhazia and South Ossetia who advocates Georgian control first and negotiations with the people of those regions second), and now is the adviser to McCain (whom I will vote for bar him choosing Romney)

David Bromwich: Georgia and the Push for Cold War
The perspective of the article is spectacular though.

Originally Posted by S-2

Your "observation" of American policy isn't remotely adequate. Empirical evidence of any form pales compared to the stated intentions of our, or ANY, government.

This is the national security strategy and objectives of the George W. Bush administration. Start here-

White House National Security Strategy

Think-tanks around D.C. need jobs. People who take these documents too seriously are either ones who wrote them or studied the subject for years and couldn't make ends meet in the field.

NATO is expanding to Russias borders and militarizing Russia's neighbors - that's all the evidence I need.

Originally Posted by S-2

Your opinion might or might not matter, but when stating the policy of any nation it's helpful to support your "observation" with comments by relevant leaders, policy position papers, and all the other documented resources so readily available.

Make use of them, please, to make your case or back off your contention. You've done neither and carry no cachet of credibility here.

Start building some.

Your approval is not necessary. If you have helpful comments and/or thoughts on the issue feel free to share with us. Otherwise don't waste your breath on trolling.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Think-tanks around D.C. need jobs. People who take these documents too seriously are either ones who wrote them or studied the subject for years and couldn't make ends meet in the field.

NATO is expanding to Russias borders and militarizing Russia's neighbors - that's all the evidence I need.

Russia's massive military superiority and ultimate guarantee its nuclear weapons preclude any of Russia's neighbors from invading. However the same does not apply to Russia who can invade in any direction and retain more military than the combined power of all its neighbors. The region is scared of Russia for good reason. why can't you see this?

Your approval is not necessary. If you have helpful comments and/or thoughts on the issue feel free to share with us. Otherwise don't waste your breath on trolling.

S-2= military professional with 2200+ posts. You have less than 100 at this point and are a nobody. How dare you accuse him of trolling. Just who do you think you are? while S-2 and myself might not agree with Brigadier Ray on this issue and might well argue about it the three of us are long time members and posters. Again you are a nobody, butt out of it.

"If you have helpful comments..."

Generally we source here on matters of nat'l policy unless you're a recognized authority or have been published as a subject matter expert. I'm certain that you're neither.

As such, dramatic but unsubstantiated assertions about American nat'l strategic objectives are dismissive. Bringing this to your attention is neither flaming nor trolling. It's, instead, an "observation" of a bare modicum of necessary and required scholarship that appears beyond your grasp. For your sake here, that must change.

Until then, you've already received more of my time than is deserved.

Hope that helps.

Originally Posted by zraver

Russia's massive military superiority and ultimate guarantee its nuclear weapons preclude any of Russia's neighbors from invading. However the same does not apply to Russia who can invade in any direction and retain more military than the combined power of all its neighbors. The region is scared of Russia for good reason. why can't you see this?

Times change, at this point NATO is far more superior.

Originally Posted by zraver

S-2= military professional with 2200+ posts. You have less than 100 at this point and are a nobody. How dare you accuse him of trolling. Just who do you think you are? while S-2 and myself might not agree with Brigadier Ray on this issue and might well argue about it the three of us are long time members and posters. Again you are a nobody, butt out of it.

You, sir, need to look up definition of "trolling" and read it.

Just because one has stuck around the same place for long doesn't make him smarter or his opinion more valuable. As a matter of fact it may indicate just the opposite. You aren't in a position to tell me to butt out of anything, anywhere and at any time. You get to either - agree, disagree, or disregard my opinion.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

Times change, at this point NATO is far more superior.

How so? While it can be argued the US is superior in most areas. And the French and Germans have better tanks and planes. The size of the Russian armed forces is nothing to sneeze at. Most importantly thousands of nuclear weapons make her borders inviolate. The only thing Russia loses by the eastward creep of NATO is her ability to intimidate and subjugate her neighbors.

You, sir, need to look up definition of "trolling" and read it.

Just because one has stuck around the same place for long doesn't make him smarter or his opinion more valuable. As a matter of fact it may indicate just the opposite. You aren't in a position to tell me to butt out of anything, anywhere and at any time. You get to either - agree, disagree, or disregard my opinion.

Your funny, since we are looking up definitions I suggest you look up the word logic.

S-2 has his name in blue, that means enough of the powers that be either knew him in uniform or accepted the details he provided to support his claim of service. If nothing more this makes him an expert in his military trade and worthy of respect for 2 reasons A- service and B- knowledge. That is your first failing in reasoning and empirical evidence. The second failing is your failure to notice how this board treats trolls to a quick banishment. 2200+ posts thus precludes him being a troll or more precisely trolling. Asking some one on a semi-academic/professional website to support their claims does not fit any of the 4 pages of definitions for trolling at urban dictionary. This then is your 3rd failing at the use of logic and unsupported and unsupportable claim. Your 4th failing is thinking a new comer can jump on a respected old timer and get away with it, in so far as at least getting called on your BS.

Originally Posted by zraver

How so? While it can be argued the US is superior in most areas. And the French and Germans have better tanks and planes. The size of the Russian armed forces is nothing to sneeze at. Most importantly thousands of nuclear weapons make her borders inviolate. The only thing Russia loses by the eastward creep of NATO is her ability to intimidate and subjugate her neighbors.

Poland, Baltics, and other parts of E.Europe look at membership as a way to practice what they themselves did not want to experience. Ergo intimidation not necessarily subjugation. A lot of political outtakes in those countries were done precisely to prove to themselves that now that they are in NATO they do not have to be civil or rational and could speak on how Russia should behave in relation to them. Which is in essence what they themselves did not want to experience. One example would be removal of subsidies on gas prices to the baltics which was deemed an undemocratic event.



There are a few thoughts revolving in my head with NATO eventually fracturing because of internal power struggles between Western European desires to express a separate foreign policy from a U.S. steered one. Hence all initiatives on European Defense Initiative, ESDP etc... that are kept in check by expansion and membership of states more favorable to the U.S. point of view. Once they formalize the military industrial complex links amongst themselves for the defense initiatives the money flow will force NATO separation and re-negotiation of defensive ties to a different arrangement.

(Perhaps I am completely wrong but anyways thats my opinion )

Originally Posted by zraver

Your funny, since we are looking up definitions I suggest you look up the word logic.

S-2 has his name in blue, that means enough of the powers that be either knew him in uniform or accepted the details he provided to support his claim of service. If nothing more this makes him an expert in his military trade and worthy of respect for 2 reasons A- service and B- knowledge. That is your first failing in reasoning and empirical evidence. The second failing is your failure to notice how this board treats trolls to a quick banishment. 2200+ posts thus precludes him being a troll or more precisely trolling. Asking some one on a semi-academic/professional website to support their claims does not fit any of the 4 pages of definitions for trolling at urban dictionary. This then is your 3rd failing at the use of logic and unsupported and unsupportable claim. Your 4th failing is thinking a new comer can jump on a respected old timer and get away with it, in so far as at least getting called on your BS.

I'm not disputing he made it to O-3. I can also understand that my position on the subject may aggravate someone with service history for U.S./NATO military but don't sit there and pretend that it's the lack of formal academic proof that offends your sensibility - it's the nationalistic pride that's getting the best of it.

Most of the things I've seen mentioned here regarding RUSSIAN intentions and policy are based purely on observation with no reference made to any formal documents, basically a matter of opinion. When someone "jumps" on me for providing similar sort of opinion it is malicious and unhelpful i.e. trolling.

Originally Posted by brokeraz

I'm not disputing he made it to O-3. I can also understand that my position on the subject may aggravate someone with service history for U.S./NATO military but don't sit there and pretend that it's the lack of formal academic proof that offends your sensibility - it's the nationalistic pride that's getting the best of it.

No, your position is being challenged. As a matter of academic respect, it is up to you to provide facts and backing to your position. You have not done so. S-2 offered up a position paper counter to your assertion. It is now your turn to offer proof of your observation.

Originally Posted by zraver

VII Corps 1991 is one there are others.

IIRC, in the book Cobra II, it was mentioned how Saddam was cut off guard - unable to mobilize its army in time of US invasion - when United States went in with much smaller force than it did in '91. A strategic surprise I presume.