DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: Michael Tee on August 13, 2008, 10:56:10 PM
-
from PRAVDA, as quoted in a typically excellent Paul Craig Roberts article in today's Counterpunch:
(the entire Pravda quote is reprinted below)
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? In your statement on Monday regarding the legitimate actions of the Russian Federation in Georgia, you failed to mention the war crimes perpetrated by Georgian military forces, which American advisors support, against Russian and Ossetian civilians
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? Your faithful ally, Mikhail Saakashvili, was announcing a ceasefire deal while his troops, with your advisors, were massing on Ossetia’s border, which they crossed under cover of night and destroyed Tskhinvali, targeting civilian structures just like your forces did in Iraq.
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? Your American transport aircraft gave a ride home to thousands of Georgian soldiers from Iraq directly into the combat zone.
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? How do you account for the fact that among the Georgian soldiers fleeing the fighting yesterday you could clearly hear officers using American English giving orders to “Get back inside” and how do you account for the fact that there are reports of American soldiers among the Georgian casualties?
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? Do you really think anyone gives any importance whatsoever to your words after 8 years of your criminal and murderous regime and policies? Do you really believe you have any moral ground whatsoever and do you really imagine there is a single human being anywhere on this planet who does not stick up his middle finger every time you appear on a TV screen?
Do you really believe you have the right to give any opinion or advice after Abu Ghraib? After Guantanamo? After the massacre of hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens? After the torture by CIA operatives?
Do you really believe you have any right to make a statement on any point of international law after your trumped-up charges against Iraq and the subsequent criminal invasion?
“President Bush,
Why don’t you shut up? Suppose Russia for instance declares that Georgia has weapons of mass destruction? And that Russia knows where these WMD are, namely in Tblisi and Poti and north, south, east and west of there? And that it must be true because there is ‘magnificent foreign intelligenc’ such as satellite photos of milk powder factories and baby cereals producing chemical weapons and which are currently being ‘driven around the country in vehicles’? Suppose Russia declares for instance that ‘Saakashvili stiffed the world’ and it is ‘time for regime change’?
Nice and simple, isn’t it, President Bush?
“So, why don’t you shut up? Oh and by the way, send some more of your military advisors to Georgia, they are doing a sterling job. And they look all funny down the night sight, all green.”
=============================================================================
Well, there is ONE country which isn't going to take any more of America's shit. And will probably feel a lot freer to provide aid and assistance to any others who won't take any more shit either.
-
They must be feeling vunerable .
-
"Well, there is ONE country which isn't going to take any more of America's shit"
oh we are soooooooooooooo scared of that miserable failure of a country!
they really came out on top of the Cold War! :D
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/39533000/jpg/_39533811_hammer_238.jpg)
yeah Russia has produced so many Dells, Microsofts, Walmarts, Apple/IPOD, Sony, Toyotas, Cokes, MRI inventions
-
yeah Russia has produced so many Dells, Microsofts, Walmarts, Apple/IPOD, Sony, Toyotas, Cokes, MRI inventions
Seriously, does any of this matter? The one thing that definitely does matter is that they've produced plenty of ICBM's and nuclear submarines.
-
yeah Russia has produced so many Dells, Microsofts, Walmarts, Apple/IPOD, Sony, Toyotas, Cokes, MRI inventions
Seriously, does any of this matter? The one thing that definitely does matter is that they've produced plenty of ICBM's and nuclear submarines.
This fleet of missles and subs do not equal ours anymore , we have reduced our complememt on purpose and so have they , but our remaining armory is well maintained while theirs is much less dependable , if we come to fight on ultimate terms their Dud rate will be high and their loss of subs will be nearly total.
There has never been a time since the 1950's that they would have less confidence in winning against us in a nuclear war.
-
Serious question Plane: Is it possible to "win" a nuclear war or a nuclear exchange? I'm not being facetious, I've just never really thought about the possibility. I always figured it to be a kind of mutual annihilation thing.
-
At this point in time, not only do they not appear to be frightened of you, but I have never even in the worst times of the Cold War seen anything near such a level of contempt for a sitting U.S. President. This is simply unprecedented. CU4 claims not to be frightened of the Russians, but I don't believe you are going to see any U.S. intervention in Georgia. And it's already cost 3,000 "coalition" soldiers. Georgia was one of the larger troop contributors. 3,000 was their full commitment and they are all being pulled out.
-
Depends on the nukes used. Tactical, yes, strategic, no.
-
Depends on the nukes used. Tactical, yes, strategic, no.
Is it possible to know which is which while they're being detected as incoming? Or once they hit for that matter? Again, I'm not being facetious but this is a new and fairly interesting concept to me (though I'm aware that Kissinger first gained fame in the 50's for being a proponent of just such a strategy and writing a book on it). The thing that would worry me would be if country A fired a bunch of tactical nukes at country B, and country B couldn't see what the heck they were, and fired a bunch of strategic nukes back, that would be a very very bad thing all around.
Have I missed something in my thinking?
-
Tactical nukes are short range, designed for battlefield attacks.
Strategic nukes are long range, designed to kill civilians and take out bases inside another country.
-
Thanks for the clarification Ami, I'm going to read up on it some more now that my interest is piqued. I'll probably see if I can find Kissinger's book anywhere while I'm at it.
-
Depends on the nukes used. Tactical, yes, strategic, no.
Is it possible to know which is which while they're being detected as incoming? Or once they hit for that matter? Again, I'm not being facetious but this is a new and fairly interesting concept to me (though I'm aware that Kissinger first gained fame in the 50's for being a proponent of just such a strategy and writing a book on it). The thing that would worry me would be if country A fired a bunch of tactical nukes at country B, and country B couldn't see what the heck they were, and fired a bunch of strategic nukes back, that would be a very very bad thing all around.
Have I missed something in my thinking?
No that is right , the absolute worst woud be assumed unless the number of missles were very small.
Several times high alerts have been called because of false indications of attack , each time the false indication was discovered in time to prevent the retaliation strike . It is important to be reluctant.
Right now though there is a missle gap that we can measure quite well and we are on the high side of it , does this make a diffrence?
Not necessacerily , if the opponent is somehow sure that we will not use the big ones even under extreme duress , they may feel free to apply extreme duress. I myself don't feel that it is impossible to get us to use our Atomic arsenal , and I don't think it should be clear where the tripline is such that opponents could operate right up to the tripline.
-
At this point in time, not only do they not appear to be frightened of you, but I have never even in the worst times of the Cold War seen anything near such a level of contempt for a sitting U.S. President. This is simply unprecedented. CU4 claims not to be frightened of the Russians, but I don't believe you are going to see any U.S. intervention in Georgia. And it's already cost 3,000 "coalition" soldiers. Georgia was one of the larger troop contributors. 3,000 was their full commitment and they are all being pulled out.
Frightened has nothing to do with it. They know Georgia isn't worth starting WWIII to us. If they were to invade Europe, I expect things would get nasty. Which is why they certainly won't.
-
At this point in time, not only do they not appear to be frightened of you, but I have never even in the worst times of the Cold War seen anything near such a level of contempt for a sitting U.S. President. This is simply unprecedented. CU4 claims not to be frightened of the Russians, but I don't believe you are going to see any U.S. intervention in Georgia. And it's already cost 3,000 "coalition" soldiers. Georgia was one of the larger troop contributors. 3,000 was their full commitment and they are all being pulled out.
This is worse than the Prague spring or the Cuban Missle crisis?
I think we have exactly the President we need to comit massive retaliation , if that is the decision reached.
But it will take weeks to gather , the Russians were obviously prepared well to attack , they must have been prepareing for weeks or months , are they also prepared to attack elesewhere?
This might be a very good time to ask all of the rest of the Republics south of Russia to join Nato.
-
Serious question Plane: Is it possible to "win" a nuclear war or a nuclear exchange? I'm not being facetious, I've just never really thought about the possibility. I always figured it to be a kind of mutual annihilation thing.
JUST caught the classic movie Wargames, with Matthew Broderick. GREAT flick 8)
-
I liked Barry Corbin (later he was Maurice Minniefield on Northern Exposure, another of my favorite shows) in that movie.
-
ditto
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invasion_of_Poland_(1939))
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/poland.htm (http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/poland.htm)
Hmmm....
Didn't the Natzi government complain about mistreatment of Ethnic Germans in the run up to invadeing Poland?
Was this claim widely beleived?
-
<<This is worse than the Prague spring or the Cuban Missle crisis?>>
In terms of massive disrespect for a sitting U.S. President? Absolutely. I don't recall anything like this anytime. Ever. Not even close.
<<I think we have exactly the President we need to comit massive retaliation , if that is the decision reached.>>
Never happen. Your leaders are too scared of a response. Russia could survive a hundred bombs on its territory, you'd cave in if five of them hit yours.
<<But it will take weeks to gather , the Russians were obviously prepared well to attack , they must have been prepareing for weeks or months>>
U.S. has no excuse not to be prepared, if they are going to intervene, the Georgians HAD to have cleared this attack with Washington before they started.
<<are they also prepared to attack elesewhere?>>
We don't talk much anymore. They probably knew what the Georgians and the CIA planned to do, so they were prepared. If the CIA is cooking up any more "surprises" like that, I'm reasonably sure they'll be equally prepared. They have good intelligence.
<<This might be a very good time to ask all of the rest of the Republics south of Russia to join Nato.>>
I think this is exactly what the Russians are not prepared to permit. And Georgia is going to be a very good lesson for them not to even think about it.
-
I don't think that the Russians are innocent , there have been a lot of provacations for what the Georgians did.
But that the Russians are willing to attack a country with less than a twentyeth of their Military strength doesn't prove that they are ready to fight on their whole European border, such a war would not need to take any Russian territory , it would break their economy faster if it did not.
The Russian Economy is certainly more robust than the Soviet Economy was , but it is still their vunerable point.
Can we have a serious war in Europe , that does not go Atomic?
That is a tough question to me, I wonder why there arn't any old Soviet Nuke wepons in Georgia or the Uckrane. Or in a vunerable storage in Russia itself. If a Hydrogen bomb went off anywhere in Russia the Russian economy would tank from lack of confidence even if the casualtys were zero. They might blame us for their problems , but their mistreatment of their neighbors isn't because we told them to mistreat their neighbors.
If they want another Cold war , they ought to remember how miserable and long the origional one was . Do they really need to be such xenophobes?
-
<<I don't think that the Russians are innocent , there have been a lot of provacations for what the Georgians did.>>
If there were a lot, then you must be able to name just one.
<<But that the Russians are willing to attack a country with less than a twentyeth of their Military strength doesn't prove that they are ready to fight on their whole European border>>
You would first have to explain why your European allies, who depend on Russian energy, would be so anxious to be drawn into a Russian war that was caused only by the U.S. creating its own satellite regime in Georgia or other parts of the Former Soviet Union. You would also have to explain to your Polish ally how you could bring it back to life after Russia nuked it.
I would also be interested in seeing how you could take on a new war with Russia when you're five trillion in the hole as a result of Iraq.
<<such a war would not need to take any Russian territory>>
LMFAO. Somebody has to learn from Hitler so it won't have been ALL wasted. That's even better. DON'T take their territory, because they need it to mass their land forces closer to your East European NATO partners. If you are planning to use nukes, (1) I suggest you don't tell your European allies about it until after the fact and (2) better pull all your troops out of the host countries before the counter-strike arrives.
<<it would break their economy faster if it did not.>>
You'll break their economy faster by NOT taking their land? Right, and you'll kill more of them by NOT shooting at them.
<<The Russian Economy is certainly more robust than the Soviet Economy was , but it is still their vunerable point.>>
Did I hear that right? The economy is WHOSE vulnerable point?
<<Can we have a serious war in Europe , that does not go Atomic?>>
Your European allies would never permit a nuclear war in their backyard. You must be smoking some very powerful weed. The first American nuke would dissolve the NATO alliance right then and there. Most of your Western European allies have no interest in provoking a nuclear counterstrike from the Russians that they could never withstand. Moreover, there is absolutely nothing in such a conflict for them. Don't flatter yourself that they are ready to commit suicide for you.
-
If Europe wants to become the property of a Russian Oligarchy , then it is time to become Isolationist and allow the Europeans to give themselves to the Russians , who know much more about capturing a territory than administering it to the benefit of anyone (even themselves).
Napoleon learned that Russians are easy to push back , but hard to fight deep in their territory , since then the Aircraft has been invented and it isn't necessary to be there to destroy something.
Hitler wanted all that land , we do not.
Yes the Russian economy would be easier to choke off than any other feature of their situation , you are wrong about the five trillion cost of Iraq , and you aren't right about any thing else either.
By the way , Russia is not Communist anymore , it is sort of an oligarchy and is heading towards Imperialism , you still like them?
-
<<I don't think that the Russians are innocent , there have been a lot of provacations for what the Georgians did.>>
If there were a lot, then you must be able to name just one.
Well the accusation is that they arm and assist the secessionists , it would be as if they armed and paid the KKK here. This accusation would be hard to prove and hard to disprove , but it doesn't seem unlikely.
At least they haven't poisoned the leaders yet as they did in the Ucrane and Chechnia .
But when Putin says tht he will defend the dignity of Russians anywhere , I would like you to imagine President Bush saying that and your reaction on an occasion that he would.Especially since in this context he seems to mean that he will defend this dignity to the death of other races.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chechen-leader-poisoned-in-runup-to-presidential-poll-581542.html (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/chechen-leader-poisoned-in-runup-to-presidential-poll-581542.html)
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/world/main661448.shtml (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/12/16/world/main661448.shtml)
http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/06/world/fg-georgia6 (http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/06/world/fg-georgia6)
-
Russia wants to control the pipelines coming out of Georgia.
It also wants to reign in the Ukraine.
Europe is fed by those pipelines.
And in the end it IS about Oil.
And history shows people will go to war over that.
See Japan.
-
JUST caught the classic movie Wargames, with Matthew Broderick. GREAT flick ;8)
I saw the sequel over the weekend. "Wargames: The Dead Code (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0865957/)"
-
Russia wants to control the pipelines coming out of Georgia.
It also wants to reign in the Ukraine.
Europe is fed by those pipelines.
And in the end it IS about Oil.
And history shows people will go to war over that.
See Japan.
How about US in Iraq #2 . Except we had an idiot in charge that fucked it all up.
-
JUST caught the classic movie Wargames, with Matthew Broderick. GREAT flick ;8)
I saw the sequel over the weekend. "Wargames: The Dead Code (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0865957/)"
There was a sequal? As good as the original?
-
There was a sequal? As good as the original?
No, but it wasn't too bad. WOPR (Joshua) made an appearance near the end.
-
I'll endeavor to check it out. Thanks for the head's-up, Ami
-
"Except we had an idiot in charge that fucked it all up"
LOL
this guy is still spouting the old outdated talking points
it's basically over dude and we won
thats why it's not even the front burner issue anymore in this election, even with democrats
and by the way when it was a front burner issue back in 2004
President Bush won and got more votes than any president in US history.
(http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m47/rockcloud/patriotic/surgeworkedfd5.jpg)
-
IIRC, I do believe Obama was on record as clearly stating how the surge would NOT work, and would actually make things far worse. Included references to how no military commander he knew would say otherwise
To this day, I don't recall any quote where he reference how wrong he was. I'm guessing we won't, either, being such a man of true conviction and sincerity and all
-
Russia wants to control the pipelines coming out of Georgia.
It also wants to reign in the Ukraine.
Europe is fed by those pipelines.
And in the end it IS about Oil.
And history shows people will go to war over that.
See Japan.
How about US in Iraq #2 . Except we had an idiot in charge that fucked it all up.
What is the "except"?
Don't the Russians have an idiot?
-
<<If Europe wants to become the property of a Russian Ogliarchy , then it is time to becom Isolationist and allow the Europeans to give themselves to the Russians , who know much more about captureing a terrority than administering it to the benefit of anyone (even themselves).>>
Sorry, I didn't know that Putin and Medvedev were agents of a Russian Oligarchy. Somehody better tell Mikhail Khodorovsky. He thinks Putin doesn't like him.
<<Napolion learned that Russians are easy to push back , but hard to fight deep in their territory , since then the Aircraft has been invented and it isn't nessacery to be there to destroy something.>>
Well, somehow Hitler didn't feel that airpower alone was going to do the job, and he's probably right because it didn't win the war for you in Viet Nam either. Looks like to destroy the country, you have to invade. Only problem, invading destroys YOU.
<<Hitler wanted all that land , we do not.>>
Smart. But if you don't want their land, that's their base from which to dictate to their neighbours how they should conduct themselves. And there ain't a God-damn thing you can do about it.
<<Yes the Russian economy would be easyer to chole off than any other feature of their situation >>
Yeah, who wants their fucking gas and oil anyway? It's a lead-pipe cinch
<<, you are wrong about the five trillion cost of Iraq , >>
Please. I'M not wrong about the 5 trill, a Nobel-Prize winning economist must be wrong. You better tell him real quick, before he embarrasses himself any further
<<and you arn't right about any thing elese either.>>
No, it's gonna take the Iraqis much longer than I thought to kick your sorry asses out of their country and regain control of their own oil. I can't claim a 100% accuracy record on my predictions. Even lost a bet to Kramer on one of them. It's depressing, plane. I really think I have too much faith in the power of good to defeat evil. It sort of colours my thinking. I ought to remember how many Nazis got away with the murder of the Jews. It'll remind me how many Americans and Israelis are going to get away with the murder of the Arabs.
<<By the way , Russia is not Communist anymore , it is sort of an ogliarchy and is heading twards Imperialism , you still like them?>>
Complex subject. I still haven't figured out how to regard the old U.S.S.R. in its last years. Let alone Putin's Russia. My greatest sentimental feeling for the U.S.S.R. is that it is the Ally which killed more Germans than all the other Allies in WWII. And also executed many more of them after the War. For that alone, I just love them. I think Putin is moving Russia away from the oligarchs (look at the nationalization of Gazprom) and back to state ownership of the means of production, at least in key areas like energy. I also feel Putin is putting Russia back on the world stage, which in general is a good thing if only because it restores a counterbalance to the U.S.A., which, left unchecked, developed world-hegemonic ambitions which cannot be allowed to continue.
Obviously, I would like to see a restored Russian world power organize on slightly different principles than the old U.S.S.R., one being that it set realistic goals (realistic meaning that it acts as part of an alliance rather than as the sole Big Cheese) for the containment and roll-back of America, two being that it reverts to basic socialist ideology ("From Each According to His Ability to Each According to His Need,") rather than the development of another nomenklatura and all the concessions it made to bourgeois materialism and consumerism. Nobody gave a shit about building socialism any more. But I am coming to grips with the loss of the old U.S.S.R.; Putin's Russia, however, is moving in the right direction. I wish them well.
-
If the SURGE WORKED, then let´s get the f==k out.
If it this isn´t`possible, well then it didn´t.
The whole stupid war was a collosal error. So was Juniorbush.
Should even one (1) American life be risked over any piece of Georgian territory, by which I do not mean the Georgia that was on Ray Charles´mind?
There are places worth defending for the US and others that are not.
Winnepeg, yes.
Ex-Soviet Georgia, no way. Not worth even the left nut of a West Virginia hillbilly
-
"And Georgia is going to be a very good lesson for them not to even think about it"
Wow Michael it really looks like Poland is scared! :D
US and Poland seal American missile shield deal
August 14, 2008, 10:58 PM (GMT+02:00)
The Polish prime minister announced Thursday night, Aug. 14, that Warsaw and Washington had finally
agreed after 18 months of negotiations on the deployment of a battery of American missiles in Poland.
This plan, which has deeply angered Moscow, is especially significant on the day the Russians appear
to be winding down their contentious military confrontation with Georgia.
-
<<Wow Michael it really looks like Poland is scared! >>
They're scared of Russia. They don't want to be left hanging out to dry like Georgia. Hoping desperately that the U.S. will defend them if the need arises in return for the bases.
-
"If the SURGE WORKED, then let´s get the f==k out."
Thats like saying "if CPR worked on the collapsed football player throw his helmet back on and send him back in the game".
Or maybe at the end of the Civil War "well blacks are now free lets get the f==k out of Dixie in all ways & let the blacks deal with the KKK and every other obstacle on their own.
In your blind lunacy of Bush Hate you want the US to leave Iraq before the job is complete.
You cant stand the fact that we are now winning and that Bush will be proven correct.
62 Americans were killed/murdered in Chicago alone last month, in Iraq 11 Americans were killed.
The surge worked, but thats only one piece of the puzzle.
You will be fun to watch as progress continues in Iraq.
And the fact that progress in Iraq pisses you off speaks volumes about you.
-
62 Americans were killed/murdered in Chicago alone last month, in Iraq 11 Americans were killed.
OMG....We need to pull everyone out of Chicago!!!
-
<<And the fact that progress in Iraq pisses you off speaks volumes about you.>>
Yeah, it shows that you respect the rule of international law and are against unprovoked aggression.