DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: _JS on August 28, 2008, 02:22:22 PM
-
Putin blames US for Georgia role
BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586605.stm)
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44967000/jpg/_44967309_putinafp.jpg)
Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has accused the US of provoking the conflict in Georgia, possibly for domestic election purposes.
Mr Putin told CNN US citizens were "in the area" during the conflict over South Ossetia and were "taking direct orders from their leaders".
He said his defence officials had told him the provocation was to benefit one of the US presidential candidates.
The White House dismissed the allegations as "not rational".
Georgia tried to retake the Russian-backed separatist region of South Ossetia this month by force after a series of clashes.
Russian forces subsequently launched a counter-attack and the conflict ended with the ejection of Georgian troops from both South Ossetia and another rebel region, Abkhazia, and an EU-brokered ceasefire.
(http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44956000/gif/_44956446_georgia_rus_226.gif)
Diplomatic wrangling
Mr Putin said in the interview: "The fact is that US citizens were indeed in the area in conflict during the hostilities.
"It should be admitted that they would do so only following direct orders from their leaders."
Mr Putin added: "The American side in effect armed and trained the Georgian army.
"Why... seek a difficult compromise solution in the peacekeeping process? It is easier to arm one of the sides and provoke it into killing another side. And the job is done.
"The suspicion arises that someone in the United States especially created this conflict with the aim of making the situation more tense and creating a competitive advantage for one of the candidates fighting for the post of US president."
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino rejected the allegation.
"To suggest that the United States orchestrated this on behalf of a political candidate - it sounds not rational," she said.
"Those claims first and foremost are patently false, but it also sounds like his defence officials who said they believed this to be true are giving him really bad advice."
Diplomatic wrangling over Russia's actions in Georgia continued on Thursday with the Georgian parliament urging its government to cut diplomatic ties with Moscow.
Earlier, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner suggested some EU countries were considering sanctions against Russia.
Mr Kouchner insisted France had made no proposals for sanctions itself but, as current president of the EU, would aim to get consensus among all 27 countries of the bloc if sanctions were envisaged.
France has called an emergency EU summit on Monday to reassess relations with Russia.
Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov described talk of sanctions as the working of "a sick imagination".
Such talk was an emotional response that demonstrated Western confusion over the situation, he said.
The US has said it is now considering scrapping a US-Russia civilian nuclear co-operation pact in response to the conflict.
"I don't think there's anything to announce yet, but I know that that is under discussion," Mr Perino said.
The White House has also announced that up to $5.75m (£3.1m) will be freed to help Georgia meet "unexpected and urgent refugee and migration needs".
Rocket test
Earlier on Thursday Russia failed to get strong backing from its Asian allies over the Georgia conflict.
The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), comprising Russia, China and Central Asian nations, met in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and spoke of its deep concern.
The group did not follow Russia in recognising the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev insisted he had the backing of the nations over Moscow's actions.
Amid the rising tension, Russia announced on Thursday it had successfully tested its long-range Topol ballistic missile from a launch site in Kamchatka in the far east of the country.
Russia says the rocket is capable of penetrating the proposed US missile defence.
-
Didn't realize Putin was an Obama supporter. Who'd a thunk it ;)
-
<<The Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO), comprising Russia, China and Central Asian nations, met in Dushanbe, Tajikistan, and spoke of its deep concern.>>
Admittedly, I haven't delved into today's headlines, but one that I thought I saw on the Yahoo home page seemed to say that Russia had obtained China's support on the Georgian issue.
-
I would think a former KGB leader would not espionage on the part of the US when he sees it.
-
I guess Grenada was justified after all.
-
This doesnt surprise me in the least . I am waiting for the phoney phucks Repubs to capture and or kill Osama just before the election. They probly were always able to get him, but he was too useful to pull out as a boogeyman every 4 years. His usefulness is now over and here is the big chance.
-
Wag the dog.
-
This doesnt surprise me in the least . I am waiting for the phoney phucks Repubs to capture / and or kill Osama just before the election. They probly were always able to get him, but he was too useful to pull out as a boogeyman every 4 years. His usefulness is now over and here is the ig chance.>>
They don't even have to get Obama - - all they need is some poor schmuck with the right height and build, kill him in a phony "air strike," publish the usual self-congratulatory crap, and then after the election's all over and done with, "Ooops, sorry! Big mistake. But what could we do? The best intel at the time said the poor guy was Obama." WMD all over again because the dumbass American sheeple never learn. Ever.
-
This doesnt surprise me in the least . I am waiting for the phoney phucks Repubs to capture / and or kill Osama just before the election. They probly were always able to get him, but he was too useful to pull out as a boogeyman every 4 years. His usefulness is now over and here is the ig chance.>>
They don't even have to get Obama - - all they need is some poor schmuck with the right height and build, kill him in a phony "air strike," publish the usual self-congratulatory crap, and then after the election's all over and done with, "Ooops, sorry! Big mistake. But what could we do? The best intel at the time said the poor guy was Obama." WMD all over again because the dumbass American sheeple never learn. Ever.
The problem with that is that the last Spanish fascist govt wasn't able to pull off the train bombing charade.
Scores die in Madrid bomb carnage
Powerful explosions have torn through three Madrid train stations during the morning rush hour, with latest reports speaking of 173 people killed.
Near simultaneous blasts hit Atocha station in the centre of the Spanish capital and two smaller stations.
No group has admitted responsibility but Spain's government blames Basque separatist group Eta for the attacks which come ahead of Sunday's election.
"There is no doubt Eta is responsible," said Spain's interior minister.
'Criminal killers'
"Eta had been looking for a massacre in Spain," the minister, Angel Acebes, said after an emergency cabinet meeting.
The scene I am seeing is hellish
Witness
"Unfortunately, today it achieved its goal," he told a news conference, saying the security services were certain Eta was behind the blasts.
There was no warning ahead of the attacks. In total there were 10 blasts, Mr Acebes said, and police had defused three other devices hidden in backpacks.
The three explosions at Atocha happened at about 0630 GMT , destroying a train that was pulling into the station.
There were also four blasts in a street outside.
"People started to scream and run, some bumping into each other," Juani Fernandez, a civil servant who was on the platform, told the Associated Press.
"I saw people with blood pouring from them, people on the ground."
A 28-year-old man called Mariano, who was travelling on the train, told El Pais newspaper that the carriage behind his had been thrown up in the air.
As people scrambled out, he tried to help the injured.
"I held a girl as she died in my arms," he told the newspaper.
Atocha is a huge rail station used by commuter and inter-city trains, which also has a metro station.
There were similar scenes of destruction and chaos at two smaller commuter stations: El Pozo and Santa Eugenia.
HAVE YOUR SAY
There was a very big blast in the trains and everything that happened after that has been very confused
Ignacio, Madrid, Spain
From the initial confusion, the scale of death and destruction has become ever more apparent.
The authorities say that, so far, 173 people are known to have died.
At least 600 people have been injured and Madrid's hospitals, swamped with casualties, have made an urgent appeal for blood donations.
Mourning
Spain's political parties suspended campaigning for Sunday's poll.
The BBC's defence correspondent Jonathan Marcus says that, in the absence of an Eta claim of responsibility, there will inevitably be continuing speculation about other potential perpetrators.
Emergency numbers for worried relatives
(00 34) 900 200 222
(00 34) 915 767 000
Spain's strong support for the US and Britain in the run-up to war with Iraq could make Spain a target in the eyes of shadowy Islamic groups, he says.
Such a suggestion has already been made by the leader of the banned Basque separatist party Batasuna, who denied that Eta could have been behind the attacks.
Arnald Otegi pointed the finger instead at what he called "the Arab resistance".
Mr Acebes, speaking earlier from the scene of the blast at Atocha, said, "Have no doubt, those responsible will be caught and will pay for their crime."
The Basque regional president, Juan Jose Ibarretxe, stressed that Eta does not represent the Basque people.
"When Eta attacks, the Basque heart breaks into a thousand pieces," he said.
The Spanish government has declared three days of mourning for the victims and called on Spaniards to stage rallies on Friday evening to condemn the attacks.
Bomb plots
If it is confirmed as Eta's work, it would be their deadliest attack in more than three decades of armed struggle for independence.
MAIN ETA ATTACKS
July 2003 : Bomb attacks in Alicante and Benidorm, 13 injured. Further explosion at Santander airport days later
Jan, Feb 2000: Car bombs explode in Madrid and the Basque capital Vitoria
June 1998: Car bomb kills Popular Party councillor Manuel Zamarreno
July 1997: ETA kidnaps and kills Basque councillor Miguel Angel Blanco
June 1987: 21 shoppers are killed in an attack on a Barcelona supermarket
1980: In ETA's bloodiest year, 118 people are killed
Dec 1973: Assassination of Prime Minister Admiral Luis Carrero Blanco
Last month, two Basques suspected of being Eta members were arrested as they headed to Madrid in a truck laden with explosives.
Spanish police said they were arrested about 140km outside the city with 500kg of explosives hidden in the vehicle.
And last December, Spanish authorities said they foiled a Basque separatist plot to blow up a train at a Madrid rail station.
France has stepped up its police presence on its border with Spain in response to Thursday's attacks, the French news agency AFP reports.
Close co-operation between the two countries has led to dozens of arrests of suspected Eta members in southern France in recent years.
1. Atocha station, 0639 GMT: Four bombs explode on a train entering the station, 59 people killed. Three blasts on a train inside the station, 30 people killed
2. El Pozo station, 0641 GMT: Two explosions, 67 people killed
3. Santa Eugenia station, 0642 GMT: One explosion, 17 people killed
Story from BBC NEWS:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm (http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/europe/3500452.stm)
Published: 2004/03/11 13:46:08 GMT
© BBC MMVIII
-
The beauty of the Republican scheme is the same as the WMD - - they don't have to fool all the people all the time, because they're absolutely shameless. The guy's killed, they get the "intel," make the announcement, celebrate and the morning after the election, then it's "OOOPS! Big mistake. Sorry folks." Even if most people don't believe them by now, they turn around enough morons to decide the election. If the people didn't lynch Bush for stealing the first election and then lying the country into a war, what the hell are they going to do about a fake Obama death? It's small stuff compared to what Bush already got away with.
-
The beauty of the Republican scheme is the same as the WMD - - they don't have to fool all the people all the time, because they're absolutely shameless. The guy's killed, they get the "intel," make the announcement, celebrate and the morning after the election, then it's "OOOPS! Big mistake. Sorry folks." Even if most people don't believe them by now, they turn around enough morons to decide the election. If the people didn't lynch Bush for stealing the first election and then lying the country into a war, what the hell are they going to do about a fake Obama death? It's small stuff compared to what Bush already got away with.
It is just that Bush doesnt directly benefit from this action if it is indeed phoney. It is McCain who will be made to look the buffoon early in his Presidency should there be one. The Spanish got caught and the Dems might be reactive enough to catch it this time. (I am just hoping , ya know)
-
once again we see the leftist must resort to some wild conspiracy "to make all the dots connect"
yeah Spain pulled off the Madrid bombings themselves
9/11 was actually a Dick Cheney inside job
Florida was "stolen" 2000....lol
Ohio was "stolen" in 2004
Israel controls the US government
if Bin Laden is captured it's a big hoax
blah blah blah
as usual no official investigative sources have made those findings
democrats would have to be in on alot of it too
sheer lunacy to to live in a pretend land where all the dots fit
::)
-
<<It is just that Bush doesnt directly benefit from this action if it is indeed phoney. >>
Bush doesn't count for shit. McCain neither. Never did and never will. They're clowns. They are just front men for big interests. If it benefits the big interests - - that is, if they really think of Obama as a threat and not as an integral part of the whole "elections" farce feeding at the same trough as Bush and McCain - - then they would have some legitimate interest in defeating him at the polling booth, rather than having to put together another "lone nut gunman" scam.
<<It is McCain who will be made to look the buffoon early in his Presidency should there be one. The Spanish got caught and the Dems might be reactive enough to catch it this time. >>
All they want is another four years of pulling the strings. McCain is expendable. Probably they wouldn't even let him in on the scam, since he's not a professional anyway. At most, they'd let him in on the cover-up afterwards, or just drop a few hints that a really vigorous investigation might not be in his own best interests. He's no genius, but even he could get the message.
<<(I am just hoping , ya know)>>
Yeah, but "hope" and "American politics" don't seem to go all that well together, as I'm sure you've noticed.
-
sounds like the Georgian people need some IED's
-
once again we see the leftist must resort to some wild conspiracy "to make all the dots connect"
yeah Spain pulled off the Madrid bombings themselves
9/11 was actually a Dick Cheney inside job
Florida was "stolen" 2000....lol
Ohio was "stolen" in 2004
Israel controls the US government
if Bin Laden is captured it's a big hoax
blah blah blah
as usual no official investigative sources have made those findings
democrats would have to be in on alot of it too
sheer lunacy to to live in a pretend land where all the dots fit
::)
These are only your perceptions of what others believe filtered through the prism of your own hatred and lunacy.
Spain didnt do the bombings . They only lied about themin an attempt to get re-elected
Dick Cheney didnt do 9/11 himself. He was just delighted with the results that gave him a chance to enhance executive power, impinge on all our rights and fight a bullshit war with Iraq which he always wanted.
Well, at least the last 4 are true.
No official sources have confirmed it because they are contolled by the criminals taht did the deeds . The Dems have gone a long wayto expose some of your abuses. When Barack is elected you will have nowhere to hide your evil.
-
The Russian Government on the other hand benefits directly and monetarily , so we know that it was not them who stirred the problem up.
-
The Russian Government on the other hand benefits directly and monetarily , so we know that it was not them who stirred the problem up.
At least they are smart enough to benefit . The Bushidiot wants to benefit , but screws it up so badly that he doesnt.
-
once again we see the leftist must resort to some wild conspiracy "to make all the dots connect"
yeah Spain pulled off the Madrid bombings themselves
9/11 was actually a Dick Cheney inside job
Florida was "stolen" 2000....lol
Ohio was "stolen" in 2004
Israel controls the US government
if Bin Laden is captured it's a big hoax
blah blah blah
as usual no official investigative sources have made those findings
democrats would have to be in on alot of it too
sheer lunacy to to live in a pretend land where all the dots fit
::)
This isn't a "leftist conspiracy" - it is the leader of another nation. One that President Bush likes very much (I won't pull out the tired quote that Bush used to describe Putin).
Why is Putin automatically dismissed? Do we know that he is wrong?
-
once again we see the leftist must resort to some wild conspiracy "to make all the dots connect"
yeah Spain pulled off the Madrid bombings themselves
9/11 was actually a Dick Cheney inside job
Florida was "stolen" 2000....lol
Ohio was "stolen" in 2004
Israel controls the US government
if Bin Laden is captured it's a big hoax
blah blah blah
as usual no official investigative sources have made those findings
democrats would have to be in on alot of it too
sheer lunacy to to live in a pretend land where all the dots fit
::)
This isn't a "leftist conspiracy" - it is the leader of another nation. One that President Bush likes very much (I won't pull out the tired quote that Bush used to describe Putin).
Why is Putin automatically dismissed? Do we know that he is wrong?
Seems like a very self serveing and retroactive evaluation. It seems like an attempt at deflection.
He has troops miles beyond the portion he is supposedly protecting , and they are digging.
-
Seems like a very self serveing and retroactive evaluation. It seems like an attempt at deflection.
He has troops miles beyond the portion he is supposedly protecting , and they are digging.
Really? The reports I have read have said that the Russians are pulling out of Georgia and settling back into South Ossetia. Moreover, the BBC reported that Russian soldiers chatted with Georgian locals. There were no car bombs or suicide attacks against the Russians. The South Ossetians seemed rather happy to have the Russians there.
So what part of that is so awful? Mind you, I'd much prefer no combat at all - but it was Georgia who went into South Ossetia with rifles raised.
And what part of that automatically proves Putin wrong?
-
Seems like a very self serveing and retroactive evaluation. It seems like an attempt at deflection.
He has troops miles beyond the portion he is supposedly protecting , and they are digging.
Really? The reports I have read have said that the Russians are pulling out of Georgia and settling back into South Ossetia. Moreover, the BBC reported that Russian soldiers chatted with Georgian locals. There were no car bombs or suicide attacks against the Russians. The South Ossetians seemed rather happy to have the Russians there.
So what part of that is so awful? Mind you, I'd much prefer no combat at all - but it was Georgia who went into South Ossetia with rifles raised.
And what part of that automatically proves Putin wrong?
That Georgian Troops cannot "invade" their own territory.
That Putin stands to gain a lot very directly , but he points at a potential gain that is rediculously speculative and distant.
It seems unlikely that he is telling anything like the truth , as how can he avoid the duty of an accuser , of proveing what he says?
-
That Georgian Troops cannot "invade" their own territory.
Nah. This excuse doesn't fly to anyone who actually knows something about the region. South Ossetia may be in Georgian territory on your UN map, but in reality it has never been ruled from Georgia since the CCCP collapsed. Again, you confuse lines on a piece of paper for real life. Democrats and Republicans may get up on their podiums and bitch about how the Georgians were unfairly treated. Yet, the reality is that South Ossetia never wanted to be a part of Georgia, and in reality they never have been. That relationship only exists in the UN, EU, and US. In South Ossetia, the Ossetic people run the country.
That Putin stands to gain a lot very directly , but he points at a potential gain that is rediculously speculative and distant.
Gain what? South Ossetia is not known for their vast wealth of resources.
It seems unlikely that he is telling anything like the truth , as how can he avoid the duty of an accuser , of proveing what he says?
And what does this country have? Moral authority against invading another nation?!? HAHAHA I think that ship has sailed. Even if we accept, for argument's sake, that Georgia has a fair claim on South Ossetia, I still do not see where the United States can step in and tell the Russians they are wrong. Not only did we invade Iraq under what turned out to be wafer-thin, flimsy, joke-of-the-world evidence - we've also invaded our neighbors quite literally HUNDREDS of times. And we support other nations (ahem...Israel) that freely invades her neighbors at will.
Do I automatically believe Putin? No, of course not. Do I believe we're capable of what he claims? Absolutely. Considering what we've done in the past - it wouldn't even register in our top 10 worst offenses.
-
That Georgian Troops cannot "invade" their own territory.
Nah. This excuse doesn't fly to anyone who actually knows something about the region. South Ossetia may be in Georgian territory on your UN map, but in reality it has never been ruled from Georgia since the CCCP collapsed. Again, you confuse lines on a piece of paper for real life. Democrats and Republicans may get up on their podiums and bitch about how the Georgians were unfairly treated. Yet, the reality is that South Ossetia never wanted to be a part of Georgia, and in reality they never have been. That relationship only exists in the UN, EU, and US. In South Ossetia, the Ossetic people run the country.
That Putin stands to gain a lot very directly , but he points at a potential gain that is rediculously speculative and distant.
Gain what? South Ossetia is not known for their vast wealth of resources.
It seems unlikely that he is telling anything like the truth , as how can he avoid the duty of an accuser , of proveing what he says?
And what does this country have? Moral authority against invading another nation?!? HAHAHA I think that ship has sailed. Even if we accept, for argument's sake, that Georgia has a fair claim on South Ossetia, I still do not see where the United States can step in and tell the Russians they are wrong. Not only did we invade Iraq under what turned out to be wafer-thin, flimsy, joke-of-the-world evidence - we've also invaded our neighbors quite literally HUNDREDS of times. And we support other nations (ahem...Israel) that freely invades her neighbors at will.
Do I automatically believe Putin? No, of course not. Do I believe we're capable of what he claims? Absolutely. Considering what we've done in the past - it wouldn't even register in our top 10 worst offenses.
South Ossetia is full of ethnic Russians because that was CCCP policy, Georgia is not the only country with this problem.
Protecting ethnic Germans in Poland was just a trumped up excuse , I don't see better trumping this time.
What Russia has to gain is the precident , it can become their policy that wherever there are Russians settled , Russia has a territorial claim. This has a lot of potential for trouble , especially since Russians don't see anything wrong with ethnic cleansing.
-
They also get a Black Sea port.
-
South Ossetia is full of ethnic Russians because that was CCCP policy, Georgia is not the only country with this problem.
Protecting ethnic Germans in Poland was just a trumped up excuse , I don't see better trumping this time.
What Russia has to gain is the precident , it can become their policy that wherever there are Russians settled , Russia has a territorial claim. This has a lot of potential for trouble , especially since Russians don't see anything wrong with ethnic cleansing.
Ossetians are not Russians. They speak a language close to the Persians. I think you'd better try again before you run away with Nazism claims of genocide without even knowing the facts.
-
They also get a Black Sea port.
Yes, but this is no longer the 16th century and the Tsar's troubled search for a warm-water port. The Russians lease Sevastopol from the Ukrainians.
-
South Ossetia is full of ethnic Russians because that was CCCP policy, Georgia is not the only country with this problem.
Protecting ethnic Germans in Poland was just a trumped up excuse , I don't see better trumping this time.
What Russia has to gain is the precident , it can become their policy that wherever there are Russians settled , Russia has a territorial claim. This has a lot of potential for trouble , especially since Russians don't see anything wrong with ethnic cleansing.
Ossetians are not Russians. They speak a language close to the Persians. I think you'd better try again before you run away with Nazism claims of genocide without even knowing the facts.
I take nothing back , Putin himself has said he was protecting Russians.
-
Russia s Black Sea ports, all of which are located in Krasnodar Krai, have increased
dramatically in importance since the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, when
Russia lost numerous ports and billions of dollars of port revenue to new
neighboring countries. In the Black Sea region alone, Russia inherited just four of
17 Soviet-era ports. Competitors in Georgia, Ukraine, and the Baltic countries
divert significant amounts of container and bulk traffic. To compete for today s
shipping, and to handle the increased traffic expected to flow through the region in
the future, Russia's Black Sea ports require significant investment.
http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3997/9507novoro.htm (http://permanent.access.gpo.gov/lps3997/9507novoro.htm)
-
No offense Bt, but you sound just like the people who claim that we're in Iraq just for the oil.
What makes your claim any different?
-
I take nothing back , Putin himself has said he was protecting Russians.
So the Russians intentions were purely selfish and evil (genocide as you said) whereas America's intentions when invading sovereign nations is purely benevolent and spreading freedom and democracy?
-
They also get a Black Sea port.
Yes, but this is no longer the 16th century and the Tsar's troubled search for a warm-water port. The Russians lease Sevastopol from the Ukrainians.
The Russians return to Czarist behavior strikes me as incongruous.
-
They also get a Black Sea port.
Yes, but this is no longer the 16th century and the Tsar's troubled search for a warm-water port. The Russians lease Sevastopol from the Ukrainians.
The Russians return to Czarist behavior strikes me as incongruous.
It strikes me as not being true.
-
I take nothing back , Putin himself has said he was protecting Russians.
So the Russians intentions were purely selfish and evil (genocide as you said) whereas America's intentions when invading sovereign nations is purely benevolent and spreading freedom and democracy?
Yes
-
I take nothing back , Putin himself has said he was protecting Russians.
So the Russians intentions were purely selfish and evil (genocide as you said) whereas America's intentions when invading sovereign nations is purely benevolent and spreading freedom and democracy?
Yes
You've got no proof of this.
So you're either a racist or a nationalist. Or both.
-
What makes your claim any different?
Russia has siezed the ports and have every intention of staying their.
Iraqi oil is going out for contract bid by the Iraqi's. If we went in for the oil, Iraq wouldn't have much to say about the matter now would they. Kinda like the South Osetians.
-
South Ossetia has no ports.
We were there for quite some time before Iraq pumped anything. Have you given the Russians the same amount of time to withdraw from Georgia back to South Ossetia and Abkhazia?
And what is this highly valued port on the Black Sea?
-
My bad. The port of Poti is a Georgian port that Russia has seized.
-
Why don't we all cut the bullshit? The Russians had as much right to stop the installation of hostile military bases in Georgia as the U.S. did to stop Russian missile batteries from being installed in Cuba.
I'm a little bit disappointed in the Shanghai Cooperation Organization's failure to back Russia in this. I think this has to lead to some very hard thinking in Russian diplomatic circles - - why and where did they fail, how could they have brought the SCO around, what needs to be done to develop this alliance to the point where it works as well for Russia as NATO does for the U.S.A.? As I see it, Russia is finally emerging from the long slump that began with the fall of Communism and the former Warsaw Pact countries' alignment with the U.S.A. and/or NATO. Protecting its Georgian border is a vital first step in that re-emergence, but other steps will also have to be taken at other points along its borders.
I think Russia is definitely in need of powerful, dependable and durable alliances if it is to withstand the U.S. drive for total world domination. The SCO is a good start, but it's still pretty shaky at this point, as Georgia obviously demonstrates. In order to cement a more serviceable alliance, I think Russia needs to develop a vision for the SCO of what it can become, what it should be. Obviously that vision will have to show the same benefits for the other members as the Russians would like it to show for them. What contributions it needs from the other member states, what inducements it can or should offer to them. Building strong alliances takes work, and dedication.
Somehow Putin needs to inspire the youngest and the smartest Russians to set to work building the new post-communist state, and that includes a whole new series of alliances and diplomatic triumphs. One of the greatest strengths of the U.S.S.R. in its earliest days was the vast supply of energetic, enthusiastic, brilliant young intellectuals, fired up to a fever pitch by the possibility of building a radically new socialist state in Russia that would honour the basic principles of "from each according to his ability . . . " and forever end the exploitation of man by man. I don't know what idea, other than communism, could create that kind of energy and enthusiasm in Russia or anywhere else, today.
-
I don't know what idea, other than communism, could create that kind of energy and enthusiasm in Russia or anywhere else, today.
Manifest destiny , empire and glory.
What hostile military bases are you talking about?
-
<<What hostile military bases are you talking about?>>
If Georgia were to join NATO, every military base in Georgia would be a hostile military base.
-
<<What hostile military bases are you talking about?>>
If Georgia were to join NATO, every military base in Georgia would be a hostile military base.
Piffle , unless we are to consider all of Russia hostile to us.
The invasion potential was the very reason that those Countrys were eager to join , some of them do not enjoy being invaded.
If we needed a recxruiting tool for Nato , what would be a better one than this?
-
<<The invasion potential was the very reason that those Countrys were eager to join , some of them do not enjoy being invaded.>>
Obviously, from the point of view of the Georgians. But what was the motive of the U.S.A. in wanting to take Georgia into NATO?
<<If we needed a recxruiting tool for Nato , what would be a better one than this?>>
On the other hand, if the Russians wanted a reason to invade Georgia, what would be a better one than Georgia joining an anti-Russian military alliance whose most influential member just happens to be the biggest current threat to world peace and a serial aggressor and invader?
-
When did NATO bcome anti Russian?
This is a club that includes most of Rusias tradeing partners , its biggest lenders and customers.
NATO has never invaded Russia , nor prepared to .
The most egregious offense NATO has committed recently was to install anti invasion excuse me ,anti aircraft missles in Poland.
Of Course the US was unwilling to provide these missles untill the invasion of Georgia , this made the Polish request seem more reasonable.
-
To diffuse the fact that he would be the oldest person ever elected president, John McCain likes to talk about his gene pool -- and how his mother is still going strong at age 90. But the quality of one's genes is only one determinant of longevity. Considering McCain's history with skin cancer, who knows what his medical future holds.
My understanding is that Sarah Palin is a nice lady. I certainly don't agree with her on most of the important social issues. Other than her interesting life story, I don't know much about her. I don't know if McCain knows much about her.
God forbid something bad should befall a 72-year-old man who's had skin cancer. But if it does, is this truly the woman we want dealing with Putin on an instant's notice?
For me, the answer is no.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/one-heartbeat-away_b_122549.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ari-emanuel/one-heartbeat-away_b_122549.html)
So Putin is the world leader you most need maleness for dealing with?
-
<<When did NATO bcome anti Russian?>>
The whole reason for it was to protect Europe against Soviet "expansionism."
<<This is a club that includes most of Rusias tradeing partners , its biggest lenders and customers.>>
so? that does not guarantee their friendliness. Tony Soprano might be your biggest lender and your biggest customer, but that doesn't mean he'll never hit you.
<<NATO has never invaded Russia ...>>
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, you are hilarious, plane.
For your information, the following is a partial list of NATO member countries which have invaded Russia since the Bolshevik Revolution: Great Britain, France, Canada, the U.S.A., Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia.
<< . . . nor prepared to.>>
No? so all those SAC bombers were just conducting meteorological studies?
-
<<When did NATO bcome anti Russian?>>
The whole reason for it was to protect Europe against Soviet "expansionism."
<<This is a club that includes most of Rusias tradeing partners , its biggest lenders and customers.>>
so? that does not guarantee their friendliness. Tony Soprano might be your biggest lender and your biggest customer, but that doesn't mean he'll never hit you.
<<NATO has never invaded Russia ...>>
Ha ha ha ha ha ha, you are hilarious, plane.
For your information, the following is a partial list of NATO member countries which have invaded Russia since the Bolshevik Revolution: Great Britain, France, Canada, the U.S.A., Poland, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Romania, Spain, Germany, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Slovakia.
<< . . . nor prepared to.>>
No? so all those SAC bombers were just conducting meteorological studies?
The Soviet union could not have been invaded with the Forces NATO ever had.
When the Soviet union fell apart they would have been vunerable to such a thing , if ther were ever any such intent in NATO , but that was always a myth , the resistance of expantion was the goal and it was the whole goal.
-
<<The Soviet union could not have been invaded with the Forces NATO ever had.>>
Of course not, because Stalin kept their guard up and maintained a credible deterrent.
<<When the Soviet union fell apart they would have been vunerable to such a thing , if ther were ever any such intent in NATO , but that was always a myth . . . >>
Nonsense - - what would be the point of invading something that was self-destructing before their very eyes?
<<the resistance of expantion was the goal and it was the whole goal.>>
Not exactly. They weren't resisting ANY expansion, just expansion towards the NATO members' home turf, particularly Western Europe. Which raises the question, if that were REALLY the goal, why is there still a NATO?
-
<<The Soviet union could not have been invaded with the Forces NATO ever had.>>
Of course not, because Stalin kept their guard up and maintained a credible deterrent.
<<When the Soviet union fell apart they would have been vunerable to such a thing , if ther were ever any such intent in NATO , but that was always a myth . . . >>
Nonsense - - what would be the point of invading something that was self-destructing before their very eyes?
<<the resistance of expantion was the goal and it was the whole goal.>>
Not exactly. They weren't resisting ANY expansion, just expansion towards the NATO members' home turf, particularly Western Europe. Which raises the question, if that were REALLY the goal, why is there still a NATO?
I think NATO is changeing , I can't predict it.
Spain and Belgum don't feel the threat anymore , NATO isn't about trade the European Union serves Western Europe better especially as they diverge from American leadership.
Eastern Europe does feel the threat , the threat was what NATO was always about , never about invadeing Russia as the Soviet union fruitlessly prepared for for half a century. Now the Eatern Europeans want to avoid invasion by banding together , so why not let them? Why not help them ?
Why not allow Spain , Holland and any other one that would like to leave go? and replace them one for one with nations more in need.
The EU has done nothing for defending itself , if Russia decides to follow this example NATO will have no threat to build itself on and all of the prospective members will stop clammoring to enter and all of the old members will retire honorably .
Have you never wondered why Canada never lobbied the WArsaw Pact for admission?
-
<<The Soviet union could not have been invaded with the Forces NATO ever had.>>
Of course not, because Stalin kept their guard up and maintained a credible deterrent.
Shure he did .
That is why the West never invaded Russia.
There was another reason too of course , the WEst didn't want Russia.
Napolion and Hitler might have wanted Russia but with the passing of Hitler there was very little of that sentament left.
Stalin whipped up fear for reason of power maintenience.
And when that deterrent was shown to be hollow by Mattias Rust the emporors clothes became transparent.
I give Mattias Rust a lot of credit .
The People of Russia realised that they were killing themselves for an illusion of safety against aninvasion no one was prepareing , when the Soviet Union dissolved hundreds of ships were retired , Subs and missles , Americans were invited to help secure excess enriched Uranium. All over the place formerly secret locations were visited .
The guard was down , and just as Stalin predicted.... well no , just as in reality the USA never wanted to conquer Russia , we just didn't want to give up our freedom for the "benefits " of Communism. When they quit pushing on the wall the wall failed to fall on them , it just fell into the hanmds of souviner collectors.