International Politics Thread

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]Many times? I'm not aware of that many. Could you please show me? And Korean war was over 50 years ago! This is the 21st century and we don't deal with things like this in the civilized world, especially under the mandate of the UN.

In "modern times" we have the Gulf War for instance. "Civilized" world yeah.

Sure, the Russian counter-attack defence operation wasn't approved by the UN, nor the georgian attack. And do you suppose people should stay and get shot at while a superior force advances? Be realistic.

Quote[/b] ]And bombing civilian targets like houses, airfields and even the gas and oil lines.. sounds like a pure-hearted peacekeeping mission to me.

Are you kidding? Civilians get hit by mistake, the russian side has no reason to kill georgian civilians while the georgian side has reason to cleanse ossetia from ossetians and russians. And what is a house in Gori compared to a city? Airfields are naturally bombed if they are used or can be used by the military. It's legitimate to attack enemy positions wherever they are, especially military airfields as they are used for attacks.

Quote[/b] ]Depends on the mission. The peacekeepers have rules of engagement and generally the idea is ".. not to go after and kill militia,'' but rather to ''establish and maintain peace and security.'' [http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2000_Sept_11/ai_65731076]

The georgian army is a militia? Do you believe that yourself? A militia doesn't have that kind of organisation and equipment, nor the numbers.

Quote[/b] ]This is purely your view of the events. There is nothing which would state this as a fact.

Razing villages around the province, and blasting every house in a city, rolling over multiple civilians with tanks etc, are just mistakes? Then the final solution was one too.

Quote[/b] ]Not defend, but to observe a ceasefire. And on the complete contrary, even your ex-president Putin "..said that Russia would be compelled to retaliate." [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_war#cite_note-putinvows-65]

You can't have a cease fire without silencing the guns of the aggressor. Putin isn't my ex-president. I haven't got anything to do with Russia.

Quote[/b] ]But you just said this was not war for the russians..

Oh and you sill didn't answer my question wether you find it justified for russians to attack SO had they shelled the russian peacekeepers..

Well, change "war" to combat. This is no war.

Russia didn't attack S. O. They reinforced their peacekeepers and performed a counter-attack.

[MehMan 0]

They reinforced them with about 150 tanks that just happened to be there, right? They also happened to have about 15000 troops there, right?

Usually it takes up to a month to get those numbers inplace...

[Commando84 0]

does't russia always have troops in some standby mode?

Like 3290+3468 9hkruhgfn omg terrorist attack or Nato attacks?! and then they push the "send the standby fast response group" or something button

i think these days russia would maybe have much easier job taking over europe if they want to then it would have been during the cold war years..

[MehMan 0]

Nah, during the cold war I think it was estimated that the Warsaw pact would achieve air supermacy in Europe in 17 days or something like.

And I don't think Russia has 150+ tanks on standby. Troops are a bit easier to transport than a 60 ton tank.

[MK1 0]

In "modern times" we have the Gulf War for instance. "Civilized" world yeah.

FYI, the Gulf war was authorised by the UN, but the recent Iraq war was not, and I've never said that the latter should be justified.

Quote[/b] ]Sure, the Russian counter-attack defence operation wasn't approved by the UN, nor the georgian attack. And do you suppose people should stay and get shot at while a superior force advances? Be realistic.

Then the Russian counter attack is hardly a peacekeeping operation, unlike the russians claim.

There are better, less hostile ways to solve such incidents as history has shown, but unfortunately it just doesn't belong to the russian way of doing things. Like I quoted earlier it's the peacekeepers mission to maintain security, not to retaliate.

Quote[/b] ]Are you kidding? Civilians get hit by mistake, the russian side has no reason to kill georgian civilians while the georgian side has reason to cleanse ossetia from ossetians and russians. And what is a house in Gori compared to a city?

Ok, how about a russian attack plane firing at fleeing civilian cars and a BBC camera crew?

Besides, Gori was a little more bombed than just for a single building. Just look at the pictures all over the net if you don't believe me.

I won't go into the debate of what reasons each side has as I'm sure both have enough to achieve what has happened.

Quote[/b] ]The georgian army is a militia? Do you believe that yourself? A militia doesn't have that kind of organisation and equipment, nor the numbers.

No, it's not a militia, but I assume the aforementioned statement applies to any kind of threat.

Quote[/b] ]Razing villages around the province, and blasting every house in a city, rolling over multiple civilians with tanks etc, are just mistakes? Then the final solution was one too.

Again, where are your sources?

Quote[/b] ]You can't have a cease fire without silencing the guns of the aggressor.

No, wrong. You can't have a cease fire without silencing the guns of both sides.

Quote[/b] ]Well, change "war" to combat. This is no war.

Well, there is, according to ie. wikipedia and frankly, I'd rather believe that source than you.

Quote[/b] ]Russia didn't attack S. O. They reinforced their peacekeepers and performed a counter-attack.

Yes, but my question was that if SO had shelled Russian peacekeepers and Russia attacked SO, would you find it justified? Just trying to see what side are you on here..

[Dwarden 1125]

Yes, Cz was on the winning side, but it was also defeated twice. First by germany and then the fascist government by the red army. Governments changed.

The Cz people didn't support the nazis, but that doesn't matter. Its soldiers still invaded the USSR.

I'm not saying the intervention in cz was right because of what they did in the USSR, but because of the counter-revolutionary activity in the country. After 1991 the counter-revolution won. You now have your "democracy" where one koruna means one vote, and where the free press is limited to represent the interests who own it. There's no economic democracy anymore. Unemployment, homelessness didn't exist before. Some people have gotten more wealthy and more power, while the majority have got less. Sure, computers, shoes etc are much cheaper to manufacture today so naturally the standards of living have risen just like in the rest of the world.

In most of East Germany (non-Berlin) 40% think it was better before. They even want the wall back. In Russia 70% liked the USSR better. A guy who has been spoon-fed with west-liberal lies can't imagine this. Because his world-view is totally distorted and simplified. The CZ communist party is quite unique as well.

To me it's quite evident who's right in this conflict:

1. US-trained Georgian soldiers invade South Ossetia when OS-starts. The 1000-man strong russian UN-peacekeeping force has no chance.

2. Georgians burn separatist villages and blast capital with artillery. Civilians and peacekeepers die.

3. Russia sends reinforcements to its peacekeepers. (Now it's Russias fault according to -most- of the western press).

4. Georgians retreat but not away from S. O. and demand a truce.

5. Georgians attack the russian soldiers from georgian territory.

6. Russia attacks those airfields and artillery positions. (Now the russian war lovers went further into Georgia according to western press).

7. When bombing a factory in Gori some houses got hit. A handful people die. The press shows these pictures over and over. But what is a house compared to a city?

And what is Georgia doing in Iraq? Who invited them there?  Saddam? who at least didn't sell his country at bargain prices to foreign interests. No complaints about them participating in that boot-licking invasion/occupation.

you failed to realize that Czech lands were occupied country 'protectorate' under direct military overwatch

(the control was tightened away from locals after 1st espionage case (majority of orchestrated gov staff and officers were working for allies nearly all of them were executed by SS)

also the 'German occupation gov wasn't never accepted as regular so Your claims are nonsense

Your view of democracy and freedom of speech and right to live LIKE i want is so badly deformed i need to wonder about your age, education and experience about things You comment

btw. of course most of Russians want USSR back because it's always great to exploit 'eslaved' countries under cover of 'freeeing the workers' revolution

and every educated person knows the USSR and post USSR Russia was and most likely still is controlled by 3 layer of mafia (politbyro mafia, military mafia and normal mafia)

normal people ? they got no voice no rights and no value in such system they just numbers like one well known dictator from same area said

---

Actually, some info sites and TV talk about over 2000 killed.

If artillery like "GRAD" firing on town, it not a trouble - kill so much peoples.

Btw, it was ethnic cleansing in captured villages. Georgian soldiers was cleaners.

http://russianossetia.wordpress.com/

P.S. Latest news.

Two Chechen battalions, "EAST" and "WEST" have arrived to a zone of the conflict. I do not envy Georgians now... Chechens are not able to spare.

yep after Russians used to 'liberate' the North Ossetian capital from Georgians thru bombing with Su-24, Su-25, rocket artilery and 152mm hovitzers like 2S3A which are for sure 'precise' and that for sure not leave any scars

anyway i saw 'RUSSIAN' !!! tv team filming SO-russian commander commenting with realtime view of SO capital from hill in background and the city was from majority undamaged ... no 'so called' massive fires etc

also i love this:

- russian claims they secured the city

- russians claims they secured hills around city and distant areas to prevent any artilery strikes

- russians control airspace

day later

- russians claim georgian still shelling city with mobile howitzers and mortars

6h later

- russian claims Georgians attacking SO capital with 3-5 helicopters (yeah sure attack distant useless target deep inside enemy controlled airspace instead of these 'easy to kill armor columns closer to SO/Gruzia line ...)

what we see is typical war of desinformations from all sides

(i was able to talk some people including several czechs who are actually in Georgia so i got my own view on the situation)

also ... why noone says the peace forces were 3 way in both A and SO region + some OSN watchers in abchazia 'buffer zone' (locals, russians and georgians under military lead of Russian commander !

in voting commisions always russians could vote together with separatists making the vote 2:1

now who supplied separatists with mobile artilery, self propeled howitzers, rocket artilery, tanks, heavy and light infantry weapons and hell even aircrafts WHILE playing "PEACEKEEPER" role ?

why noone mentions the events prior Georgian 'try to retake SO control' where for nearly 2 days were Georgian villages in SO shelled by artilery, rockets, mortars and so on ?

funny that day before Georgian tanks entered SO tried theirs president to offer SO full autonomy in exchange for cease fire ... guess what it was denied ...

so much for objective 'All is fault of Georgians' point of view

same goes for 'all is fault of Russians' or 'Separatists'...

also citizens of Georgia got quite simple point of view on things "President which give up SO and Abchazia w/o fight is no more worth my support and votes"

approx similar to what would think Russians about theirs president giving up some part of original Russia w/o fight

it's no win situation for civilians and hard for Georgia because they simply too small and alone w/o some usable support

Russia also got nice 'safety' switch in passports cause theirs consitution allows them to protest theirs citizens at any place of earth with any force as they decide to fit

so beware if you got Russian enclave in Your country You soon may become next on the 'liberate and secure' list

btw. i find funny how everyone says Georgian president is bad ugly evil asshole and dictator ... sure he must be cause while he was in office the bancrupcy was crushed to minimum, elecricity and general energy supplies are stable etc.

maybe he is egomaniac now but for sure wasn't whole time and watching georgians they mostly supports his actions (again the no win situation whatever you decide to do)

[Baff1 0]

You understand that modern artillery has ranges of 10's of miles right?

That an artillery piece 20 miles outside of Ossetia can still fire on the the Ossetian capital.

That to militarily secure Ossetia targets outside of Ossetia must be destroyed.

@the guy earlier who described the Russian response as overkill, I see no sign of any overkill. When Russians do overkill, you will know about it.

They didn't just flatten Georgian cities.

They could have done.

If they had wanted to kill civilians or punish Georgia, they could have just annihilated the place.

They didn't have to just focus on the Georgian war machine.

The minimum Russian aim must have been to bring military security to Ossetia, and the other autonomous regions under their mandated protection.

It has been intresting to me to see, given the perfect excuse, exactly how much further they would be willing to go.

It seems to me that having achieved this, they have abruptly stopped, (so far).

They could have gone on to acheive a load of political scores, like, regime change or destroying my pipeline. They could capture the whole country anytime they please. (They still can and always could).

But they seem to have stopped.

In spite of all their detractors fears and claims, this operation seems to have been specicifically limited to peace keeping so far.

[Teo 0]

Russia has declared a temporary ceasefire and both Georgian and Russian troops have to move back to their original positions before the conflict.

I would like to make the point that Russia stating that a large group of Ossetians hold Russian passports was always irrelevant. That's what happens when a country is effectively colonised by another. Anyway sounds like the Germans in 1938 when they moved into the Sudetanland.

If the Russians are serious about peacekeeping in South Ossetia they won't mind a UN/EU peacekeeping force being put in place. At least that way we won't have a re-occurence of this violence.

I'm Irish and neutral, I believe in democracy (which does exist) and the right to speak one's mind and in business terms I am a capitalist with morals.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]They reinforced them with about 150 tanks that just happened to be there, right? They also happened to have about 15000 troops there, right?

Usually it takes up to a month to get those numbers inplace...

Ignorance again. But it's not your fault.

Russia has about 350k standing troops. If you visit Russia you see military personell quite often, especially at borders. And what makes you think the troops aren't mobilized? Also add that Chechnya is there. And in this context 150 tanks is nothing.

Quote[/b] ]Then the Russian counter attack is hardly a peacekeeping operation, unlike the russians claim.

There are better, less hostile ways to solve such incidents as history has shown, but unfortunately it just doesn't belong to the russian way of doing things. Like I quoted earlier it's the peacekeepers mission to maintain security, not to retaliate.

It's a peacekeeping operation. Peacekeepers are equipped with guns and instructed to use them to keep the peace in line with international agreements. Just like in Congo, Haiti or East Timor. The georgian attack was not in line with international agreements. Peacekeepers have all the right to "retaliate", i.e. counter-attack to weaken the enemy chances of advance.

The georgians started the invasion and you demand the russians to find a peaceful solution? What about self-defence?

Quote[/b] ]Ok, how about a russian attack plane firing at fleeing civilian cars and a BBC camera crew?

Besides, Gori was a little more bombed than just for a single building. Just look at the pictures all over the net if you don't believe me.

I won't go into the debate of what reasons each side has as I'm sure both have enough to achieve what has happened.

According to western military analysts it was a Georgian plane (it's the only plane type Georgia uses, SU-25). They also say that using lone attack planes and that kind of basic ammunition is an un-russian military behaviour. Some western journalist, non-BBC of course, think that it's possible that Georgians attacked that car and missed on purpose.

In Tbilisi people screamed they were being bombed when they saw a "russian" bomber in the air. In reality it was an american transport plane.

Quote[/b] ]Again, where are your sources?

Western media in my country. Interviewed ossetians in refugee camps.

Quote[/b] ]No, wrong. You can't have a cease fire without silencing the guns of both sides.

The aggressor has the guilt. If he's gone, no aggression. The defenders have no interests in conquering anything. They don't want a war. Or was it the guilt of the allies in WW2 that Nazi-Germany started a war?

Quote[/b] ]Well, there is, according to ie. wikipedia and frankly, I'd rather believe that source than you.

Georgia considers it a war. Russia does not. Georgia thinks it defends itself from Russia, while being an aggressor. But Russia has no interest in taking any parts of Georgia. It's no war. Just a violent conflict.

Quote[/b] ]Yes, but my question was that if SO had shelled Russian peacekeepers and Russia attacked SO, would you find it justified? Just trying to see what side are you on here..

Why would SO shell russian peacekeepers? They want their independence. Peace guarantees it. I think you misunderstand the reason for the conflict. It's not about the dead peacekeepers, it's about maintaining a status-quo in the region.

Those of you who support Georgia are just subject to western bias, and brainwash through videogames like Operation Flashpoint or Ghost Recon and a load of pro-west anti-russian movies.

Quote[/b] ]also the 'German occupation gov wasn't never accepted as regular so Your claims are nonsense

By whom? If a force in society calling itself government is in control it's a government.

Quote[/b] ]btw. of course most of Russians want USSR back because it's always great to exploit 'eslaved' countries under cover of 'freeeing the workers' revolution

and every educated person knows the USSR and post USSR Russia was and most likely still is controlled by 3 layer of mafia (politbyro mafia, military mafia and normal mafia)

Yea, make some research and write a book. Maybe you'll get a phd for finding conclusions and facts no historian has seen before.

The SO capital is just at the Georgian border. So naturally georgian helicopters can move in fairly unnoticed. If the surrounding areas inside Georgia aren't controlled.

Quote[/b] ]I'm Irish and neutral, I believe in democracy (which does exist) and the right to speak one's mind and in business terms I am a capitalist with morals.

No offence, but I doubt that you're a capitalist. Or do you own a factory or shares in such an amount that you don't have to work? In Athens long time ago people called the system democratic, only a few, the free men, were allowed to vote. In the 19th century people also called their systems democratic, but people had a different amount of votes according to wealth or land. Today it's better, but there's still no democracy. One dollar one vote is called plutocracy.

[MehMan 0]

15k troops and 150 tanks is not a small numbers. It's a logistical nightmare in places where infrastructure isn't the best. And I don't think South Ossetia has the best of it. You don't just happen to have that many troops and tanks at that place at that time. It was planned and it wasn't planned two weeks ago, but rather two months ago. A response force of 150 tanks is still a bitch to move.

[Commando84 0]

in my country you can vote, you don't need to have a solid adress, i haven't heard of any countries where you have to pay to vote

In my country you usually vote for the party and yeah sometimes if that party has a leader that you feel you can trust.

And them debates between candidates are usually shown in the national tv channel wich is adfree. So everybody gets a chance.

Sure the smaller parties doesn't get as much a chance but they have to work they way up like everyone else.

Well i dunno whats so bad with owning a factory spokesperson? When starting up a business you in the long run also help people in the nearby areas to get work and work creates cash that makes people happy to be able to get what food and material stuff they want and need. Hey if i had 50 or 100 times the cash i have now i would easily startup a small games company and work to make it larger and hiring people. Businesses create wealth in the nearby areas and prevents poverty, a well run company might keep people from unemployment, depression and crime. Its well known stuff imo...

[chris330 0]

Hi I haven't kept too much track of this thread as it's a bit complex for me but I have a question.

Forgoing all morality based finger pointing does anyone on here consider it possible that Russia initiated this campaign or were provoked into initiating this campaign because it is strongly suspected oil prices will now fall and this was one last crack of the whip to stall it at a high price for a while given the obvious conflict proximity of the major pipeline in the south?

It hasn't actually impacted the price of oil much though. Perhaps that's why there is now a withdrawal as it didn't have enough of an effect to be worth it or maybe the point is now made and Russia now have a bargaining tool to nudge up world oil prices that little bit every time a political spat between them and Georgia hits the news?

I'm not discussing morality it's purely from a business perspective. Does anyone else think this might be a good reason behind it all?

[william1 0]

Quote[/b] ]Lets face it - Russia has one of the most horrifying human rights records of the last 100 years and they aren't exactly the beacon of freedom and integrity in the world.

put USA instead of Russia and 60 instead of 100 and the phrase keeps its meaning completely

[Spokesperson 0]

South Ossetia is a small place. The biggest town only has a bit more than 50k inhabitants. 150 tanks can easily be organized and moved to South ossetia in less than a day. And that's what we saw.

15k troops is little. Georgia can mobilize hundreds of thousands. Maybe millions.

At least 9k of the troops are paratroopers.

Yes, the conflict was planned, but not by the Russian side. The russians are just more experienced and better organized. After all Georgia launched the attack, not Russia. And naturally there is an heavy amount of Russian troops guarding its borders. This is no such border inside the EU.

It wouldn't surprise me if they had 10 or 20 times that amount of tanks in the area on the russian side.

Quote[/b] ]in my country you can vote, you don't need to have a solid adress, i haven't heard of any countries where you have to pay to vote

That's not what I mean by one dollar one vote. A billionaire has more influence on politics than you. The owners, the rich, decide what to produce and which politicians to support with resources, if they don't want to be politicians themselves like Obama, Bush, Berlusconi.

Quote[/b] ]In my country you usually vote for the party and yeah sometimes if that party has a leader that you feel you can trust.

And them debates between candidates are usually shown in the national tv channel wich is adfree. So everybody gets a chance.

Sure the smaller parties doesn't get as much a chance but they have to work they way up like everyone else.

Only the big parties, which have slight different opinions on % tax and other minor reforms, have the ability to reach out and advertise that they exist and inform people what they want. Your idea of small parties working up is bad. Parties representing the interests of the upper class, i.e. capitalists, naturally get funding, while small parties that are against the current order and the rule of capitalists are combatted by the very same means. Current european and american politics is like choosing between different factions of the same party. And that's why some people think politics is dull. Always the same shit. This isn't strange as it's a rational result of how the system works. It's a kind of natural selection based on wealth and who's got the power currently.

Most of South America recently stepped out of that carousel.

Quote[/b] ]Well i dunno whats so bad with owning a factory spokesperson? When starting up a business you in the long run also help people in the nearby areas to get work and work creates cash that makes people happy to be able to get what food and material stuff they want and need. Hey if i had 50 or 100 times the cash i have now i would easily startup a small games company and work to make it larger and hiring people. Businesses create wealth in the nearby areas and prevents poverty, a well run company might keep people from unemployment, depression and crime. Its well known stuff imo...

Owning a factory doesn't have to be bad. But exploiting people is. Let me explain how capital is created.

W works 8h per day for the share-holder C at a factory or an office. He produces a product (material or intellectual) which is supposed to be sold as a commodity.

During the day W produces products for X value while he receives Y in payment for it. X-Y=P is the profit C makes. C has therefore made P through not working. He has earned money by just owning something. He earns money on other people's work, he's an exploiter.

Now, in a society, is C needed? In this yes of course. You can't have capitalism without capitalists. But is it possible to build a society without C? Yes. Can the workers get the full value of their work X and control production democratically themselves? Yes. That's economic democracy. Production in the service of society instead of for a few owners.

In all societies this relation of exploitation has existed. But W is exchanged for slave or serf, and C slave-owner or land-owner for instance. The socialist society is the first type of society that isn't based on this relation anymore. And capitalists do everything to stop this from happening while conscious workers all over the world try to make it happen. All over from South America to Asia.

What you say about making a business is true. Of course it usually creates wealth. But things can work in a different, more democratic way and still create wealth. When this kind of way is utilized there's no unemployment, hardly any crime or homelessnes, unless the workers want this to exist. Who wants unemployment and homelessness? Nobody. Still it exists in this society. Who has the power? Is it really you?

[Baff1 0]

Hi I haven't kept too much track of this thread as it's a bit complex for me but I have a question.

Forgoing all morality based finger pointing does anyone on here consider it possible that Russia initiated this campaign or were provoked into initiating this campaign because it is strongly suspected oil prices will now fall and this was one last crack of the whip to stall it at a high price for a while given the obvious conflict proximity of the major pipeline in the south?

It hasn't actually impacted the price of oil much though. Perhaps that's why there is now a withdrawal as it didn't have enough of an effect to be worth it or maybe the point is now made and Russia now have a bargaining tool to nudge up world oil prices that little bit every time a political spat between them and Georgia hits the news?

I'm not discussing morality it's purely from a business perspective. Does anyone else think this might be a good reason behind it all?

I have shares in the pipeline so I've been crossing my fingers.

The Russians bombed it once, but missed. (It's on the otherside of the country from the fighting).

They didn't go back for it and as far as I know it has survived the crisis.

If they had truely wanted to disrupt it, they would have done. I think they were tempted too.

It's difficult to imagine whether it was a Kremlin policy decision to attack it, or an over zealous general and Kremlin policy to reign him in.

[Commando84 0]

yeah i have power, i can choose to work or i can choose to be nobody that lives in my parents basement until they die then i have to apply for social welfare cash or something

But i wouldn't probably afford their house if that happened

nah wait they worked a bunch of years and saved cash to move south to spain.. oh well gonna be on my own but im already living alone atm and going to school to study game design stuff and graphics works..

But sure a piece of me is owned by whoever i work for but its like 10 % or so

But working for a employer is that you have things you have to do for them and they have things they have to do for you.

A good employer also pays my pension cash that i get when i get 65 if i choose to go to retirement then or continue to work, but due to me liking to keep busy i'll probably work a few extra years..

everybody got a choice, sure the system gets a little bit better every year to hunt down the cheaters and tax cheaters, but this year i read the swedish goverment had 50-something millions of kronors extra due to higher numbrs of people working and not living on wellfare funds.. I think many countries like Usa could really benefit from such a system to help the goverment build better schools and having a big budget covering a big ass military budget...

my country just cuts military budgets alot and works more on giving the politicians more cash and same time improving stuff everywhere. Sometimes thinking if i could join politics just for the silly amounts of cash you can receive.

[Baff1 0]

15k troops and 150 tanks is not a small numbers. It's a logistical nightmare in places where infrastructure isn't the best. And I don't think South Ossetia has the best of it. You don't just happen to have that many troops and tanks at that place at that time. It was planned and it wasn't planned two weeks ago, but rather two months ago. A response force of 150 tanks is still a bitch to move.

Roll em on the train.

Roll em off again.

I think the tanks in theatre were a regional support element. Presumably they have been stationed nearby since the last time they had to go in 15 years ago.

Perhaps they were in overwatch mode for it's peacekeeping garrison.

With the Georgians having been promising to invade Ossetia for the last 3 years, an election promise no less, it can't have come as too big a suprise to the Russians.

Certainly judging by their target accuracy they weren't an elite frontline brigade.

I think it took a couple of days for the Spetznats units to get on the ground.

[Baff1 0]

Quote[/b] ]W works 8h per day for the share-holder C at a factory or an office. He produces a product (material or intellectual) which is supposed to be sold as a commodity.

During the day W produces products for X value while he receives Y in payment for it. X-Y=P is the profit C makes. C has therefore made P through not working. He has earned money by just owning something. He earns money on other people's work, he's an exploiter

Don't forget that C also works in the same factory as W.

And that P gets paid far more than C gets paid from his investment.

And that when C is ninety that investment not only keeps him aliove when he is too physically weak to work, but it also provides a firts job for the next generation of W's.

How about instead of trying to demonise people that work hard to provide for themselves in a manner that is beneficial to their communities, YOU stop exploiting them.

You are just trying to justify why it is OK for you to steal off them.

Quit being lazy. Get a job.

And when you get a job. Quit being irresponsible and invest in society rather than just trying to instantly gratify yourself only.

Really mate. Be a man.

[Baff1 0]

During the day W produces products for X value while he receives Y in payment for it. X-Y=P is the profit C makes. C has therefore made P through not working. He has earned money by just owning something. He earns money on other people's work, he's an exploiter.

Nonsense

C has made P by working his butt off.

You are an exploiter.

You seek to justify stealing C's money so you don't have to work.

You would rather demonise him and not work yourself than contribute to society like C and W do.

C worked all his life to earn enough money to invest in that factory. C is still working hard to earn more to keep investing in that factory.

Most likely C is working is working right next to P in that very same factory.

W recieves more money for working in the factory than C does for investing in it.

When C is ninety years old and incapable of working in the factory himself, his investment will not only save his life but also give a new W his first job. Allowing him to save money for himself for his own retirement, which will inturn allow him to sponsor a new factory and provide new wealth for the next generatiosn of W's.

[scubaman3D 0]

I think the tanks in theatre were a regional support element. Presumably they have been stationed nearby since the last time they had to go in 15 years ago.

Perhaps they were in overwatch mode for it's peacekeeping garrison.

I think you're speaking of things about which you know very little.

For every 1 tank, there are probably 5 other vehicles that need to be mobilized in support. Russia probably had to move nearly 1000 vehicles to the border along with likely 5-10x the number of support personnel and this isn't something that can be done very quickly. Real war isn't like ArmA. It takes weeks or months of planning and gathering intelligence to mobilize a force like this.

On top of that point, Georgia had been complaining for many weeks now that Russian troops were massing at their border - indicating this invasion of a sovereign, democratically elected country, by Russia, was pre-planned.

This is classic USSR cookbook shit.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]But sure a piece of me is owned by whoever i work for but its like 10 %

It's probably a lot more than that. I made a calculation based on one of the major successful companies in the country where I live and came to the conclusion that the employees could reduce their work-hours to 3.5h per day while keeping their current wages, instead of working 8h. Based on their financial reports. If the share-holder element was to be removed. So when you work there, about half of the time is work for the share-holders. Now think that you own a factory all by yourself. And have 100 workers. Of course it's easy to get rich then. Much easier than working oneself.

And I would never exchange freedom for any kind of wealth. Sure the living standards increase, but the freedom does not. The capitalist system suffers from a few economic phenomena that lead to economic decline and eventually collapse. ie the falling rate of profit. This system, works, but is not stable.

The big "cheaters" aren't normal people who don't pay their taxes. It's companies that pay no tax at all or rich people who earn money on the work of other people.

The USA needs their military budget to make sure the country can exist. They can't just put it on healthcare or similar. Then US interests around the world would collapse and generate no base for health care at all.

Quote[/b] ]C has made P by working his butt off.

You are an exploiter.

You seek to justify stealing C's money so you don't have to work.

You would rather demonise him and not work yourself than contribute to society like C and W do.

C worked all his life to earn enough money to invest in that factory. C is still working hard to earn more to keep investing in that factory.

Most likely C is working is working right next to P in that very same factory.

W recieves more money for working in the factory than C does for investing in it.

When C is ninety years old and incapable of working in the factory himself, his investment will not only save his life but also give a new W his first job. Allowing him to save money for himself for his own retirement, which will inturn allow him to sponsor a new factory and provide new wealth for the next generatiosn of W's.

Work is the only action that creates value. C doesn't add anything to the product. W creates P for C. Meanwhile C can sit in bahamas or in his mansion. Or have you seen a share-holder produce a value equivalent of that he gets from P?

Most of C haven't started any businesses at all. And most of them are inheriting money. And even if C has built the factory all by himself, (usually others do that for him), he's still exploiting people by making them produce X and paying them Y. C is not needed. He's a parasite. He can be removed completely. And he has many times. With very good results. Deficits turned into profits.

[Baff1 0]

I think the tanks in theatre were a regional support element. Presumably they have been stationed nearby since the last time they had to go in 15 years ago.

Perhaps they were in overwatch mode for it's peacekeeping garrison.

I think you're speaking of things about which you know very little.

For every 1 tank, there are probably 5 other vehicles that need to be mobilized in support. Russia probably had to move nearly 1000 vehicles to the border along with likely 5-10x the number of support personnel and this isn't something that can be done very quickly. Real war isn't like ArmA. It takes weeks or months of planning and gathering intelligence to mobilize a force like this.

On top of that point, Georgia had been complaining for many weeks now that Russian troops were massing at their border - indicating this invasion of a sovereign, democratically elected country, by Russia, was pre-planned.

This is classic USSR cookbook shit.

Right, but the Georgian forces didn't need to be massed I suppose? Your logic is flawed. IF the Georgians can see the Russians massing, the Russians can see the Georgian's massing.

Who is too say the Russians weren't responding to a Georgian build up, that we all know has been planned for three years.

Sorry mate but I'm not from the U.S.S.R. and they didn't tell me to say that.

Do you honestly believe that if the Georgian forces saw a massed tank armada on their border they would have started to shell Ossetia?

I've heard no complaints of a Russian build up from Georgia.

I don't think they were expecting the Russians to respond at all.

Saakashvili was stupid, sure, but he's not positively retarded.

[Spokesperson 0]

I think the tanks in theatre were a regional support element. Presumably they have been stationed nearby since the last time they had to go in 15 years ago.

Perhaps they were in overwatch mode for it's peacekeeping garrison.

I think you're speaking of things about which you know very little.

For every 1 tank, there are probably 5 other vehicles that need to be mobilized in support. Russia probably had to move nearly 1000 vehicles to the border along with likely 5-10x the number of support personnel and this isn't something that can be done very quickly. Real war isn't like ArmA. It takes weeks or months of planning and gathering intelligence to mobilize a force like this.

On top of that point, Georgia had been complaining for many weeks now that Russian troops were massing at their border - indicating this invasion of a sovereign, democratically elected country, by Russia, was pre-planned.

This is classic USSR cookbook shit.

Why would it only take months for the russians to plan that reinforcement? It's nothing. What about the georgian invasion? Just a spontaneous shelling of Thsinkvali?

Of course Georgians don't have to plan things. US-advisors can do that for them.

[Baff1 0]

Work is the only action that creates value. C doesn't add anything to the product. W creates P for C. Meanwhile C can sit in bahamas or in his mansion. Or have you seen a share-holder produce a value equivalent of that he gets from P?

No it isn't.

Knowledge adds value.

Advice adds value.

Popularity adds value.

Rarity adds value.

Appearance adds value.

Presentation adds value.

All sort of things add value.

The work you can do without any tools is of very limited value compared to the work you can do with tools.

Tools provide value.

If I invest an axe in you, you will produce far more firewood than if left to just your own bare hands.

More than you need, faster than you would have been able to without me.

I keep you in axes, you cut a little extra for me.

Business is profitable for everyone.

You won't have to hate on people you've never met if you become a productive member of society.

Stop sponging, get some self-esteem.

[Spokesperson 0]

Quote[/b] ]No it isn't.

Knowledge adds value.

Advice adds value.

Popularity adds value.

Rarity adds value.

Appearance adds value.

Presentation adds value.

All sort of things add value.

No. If you have an object, the only thing that can make it more valuable is if you add work to it. Work adds Value. Knowledge, popularity etc has nothing to do with value. Knowledge can make work easier, and therefore have an effect on value. But knowledge in itself is nothing. Rarity and appearance etc only affect price. Not value.

Tools don't provide value, but can make value accumulate faster. Tool manufacturing requires work, that work adds value to the product the tool is used on in combination with work.