Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
denoir

International Politics Thread

Recommended Posts

If he wants to achieve that we think he is a moron, then he has succeeded.

But I guess it is just another piece of propaganda and not actually a serious statement.

If it is a serious statement... well then see what I wrote above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh dear me..

"South Ossetia's Kokoity said the United States and Europe were responsible for the "genocide" in his nation.

"Georgia did not act on its own - most European countries, and the United States, are to blame for the genocide against the South Ossetian people," Kokoity said."

http://en.rian.ru/world/20080814/116036401.html

I wonder what he plans to achieve with that comment.

Until we see the mass graves......

I wish these people would show evidence of these crimes. Or shut the hell up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all south ossetia belongs to ossetians, and they decide what they want not georgians. They want to be part of russia, they even voted, but nooo georgia wants them.

...

"South Ossetians nearly unanimously approved a referendum on November 12, 2006 opting for independence from Georgia. The referendum was hugely popular, winning between 98 and 99 percent of the ballots, flag waving and celebration marked were seen across South Ossetia, but elsewhere observers were less enthusiastic. International critics claimed that the move could worsen regional tensions, and the Tblisi government thoroughly discounted the results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia

Where is democracy? when 99% had voted...

Right, but where does one draw a line and say at what point people should stop breaking up into smaller groups? For example, if I organized an election for the road I live on to declare independence from the rest of Ireland, would Russia send over a few tank battalions to back up my cause? Furthermore, what about Chechnya? As I understand it, a majority of Checnyans supported their claim to independence. Why did the Russians crush them with force, but support the South Ossetians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One day I will be the one to laugh. The people of South America, Nepal, Cyprus are already. There your kind of people have been stripped of all their US-backed power. The american economy is going down for good, and with it the entire capitalist system. It might take decades, but we'll be there. And we'll celebrate.

Whatever dude, get a job and contribute like everyone else or shut the hell up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One day I will be the one to laugh. The people of South America, Nepal, Cyprus are already. There your kind of people have been stripped of all their US-backed power. The american economy is going down for good, and with it the entire capitalist system. It might take decades, but we'll be there. And we'll celebrate.

Well one good thing is that you'd finally shutup

But on the other hand, in your place will come those that will be just like you but will stand for freedom instead of tyranny - and you will crush them and suppress their ideas and beliefs because, after all, they are different from yours.

Not at all.

I support the freedom from oppression while my opponents support the freedom to oppress. Either you own the means of production or you don't.

Quote[/b] ]Whatever dude, get a job and contribute like everyone else or shut the hell up.

Who says I don't have a job? Just because people (Baff1) write I don't have one, it doesn't mean it's true, you know. He just needed to assume that for his lack of arguments or his view of the world wouldn't be complete.

He probably thinks that a majority of the people in Cyprus, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, Nicaragua etc don't have a job because they are socialists.

I'm not going to discuss about myself, because it isn't interesting, it is off-topic and I have no reason to do that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]My thought on secession is that if you want to secede, prepare for war. History has told us this. Anyway, the Russians were supposed to facilitate peace between Georgia and South Ossetia; however, they had their own interests that compromised them being neutral in this matter. They abused their authority on this matter by giving South Ossetia the option to get Russian passports and etc. I'm sure you would be pissed if a foreign country gave certain people in a region of your country passports.

Ossetia was forced to be part of Georgia by same peoples who forced Georgia to be part of USSR.

In 1991 Georgia become independent from Russia. 2008 Ossetia become independent from Georgia.

What the problem?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have found a very interesting article that is well worth a read.

Russo-Georgian War and Balance of Power

Quote[/b] ]August 13, 2008

Russo-Georgian War and Balance of Power

By George Friedman

The Russian invasion of Georgia has not changed the balance of power in Eurasia. It simply announced that the balance of power had already shifted. The United States has been absorbed in its wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as potential conflict with Iran and a destabilizing situation in Pakistan. It has no strategic ground forces in reserve and is in no position to intervene on the Russian periphery. This, as we have argued, has opened a window of opportunity for the Russians to reassert their influence in the former Soviet sphere. Moscow did not have to concern itself with the potential response of the United States or Europe; hence, the invasion did not shift the balance of power. The balance of power had already shifted, and it was up to the Russians when to make this public. They did that Aug. 8.

Let’s begin simply by reviewing the last few days.

On the night of Thursday, Aug. 7, forces of the Republic of Georgia drove across the border of South Ossetia, a secessionist region of Georgia that has functioned as an independent entity since the fall of the Soviet Union. The forces drove on to the capital, Tskhinvali, which is close to the border. Georgian forces got bogged down while trying to take the city. In spite of heavy fighting, they never fully secured the city, nor the rest of South Ossetia.

On the morning of Aug. 8, Russian forces entered South Ossetia, using armored and motorized infantry forces along with air power. South Ossetia was informally aligned with Russia, and Russia acted to prevent the region’s absorption by Georgia. Given the speed with which the Russians responded — within hours of the Georgian attack — the Russians were expecting the Georgian attack and were themselves at their jumping-off points. The counterattack was carefully planned and competently executed, and over the next 48 hours, the Russians succeeded in defeating the main Georgian force and forcing a retreat. By Sunday, Aug. 10, the Russians had consolidated their position in South Ossetia.

On Monday, the Russians extended their offensive into Georgia proper, attacking on two axes. One was south from South Ossetia to the Georgian city of Gori. The other drive was from Abkhazia, another secessionist region of Georgia aligned with the Russians. This drive was designed to cut the road between the Georgian capital of Tbilisi and its ports. By this point, the Russians had bombed the military airfields at Marneuli and Vaziani and appeared to have disabled radars at the international airport in Tbilisi. These moves brought Russian forces to within 40 miles of the Georgian capital, while making outside reinforcement and resupply of Georgian forces extremely difficult should anyone wish to undertake it.

The Mystery Behind the Georgian Invasion

In this simple chronicle, there is something quite mysterious: Why did the Georgians choose to invade South Ossetia on Thursday night? There had been a great deal of shelling by the South Ossetians of Georgian villages for the previous three nights, but while possibly more intense than usual, artillery exchanges were routine. The Georgians might not have fought well, but they committed fairly substantial forces that must have taken at the very least several days to deploy and supply. Georgia’s move was deliberate.

The United States is Georgia’s closest ally. It maintained about 130 military advisers in Georgia, along with civilian advisers, contractors involved in all aspects of the Georgian government and people doing business in Georgia. It is inconceivable that the Americans were unaware of Georgia’s mobilization and intentions. It is also inconceivable that the Americans were unaware that the Russians had deployed substantial forces on the South Ossetian frontier. U.S. technical intelligence, from satellite imagery and signals intelligence to unmanned aerial vehicles, could not miss the fact that thousands of Russian troops were moving to forward positions. The Russians clearly knew the Georgians were ready to move. How could the United States not be aware of the Russians? Indeed, given the posture of Russian troops, how could intelligence analysts have missed the possibility that the Russians had laid a trap, hoping for a Georgian invasion to justify its own counterattack?

It is very difficult to imagine that the Georgians launched their attack against U.S. wishes. The Georgians rely on the United States, and they were in no position to defy it. This leaves two possibilities. The first is a massive breakdown in intelligence, in which the United States either was unaware of the existence of Russian forces, or knew of the Russian forces but — along with the Georgians — miscalculated Russia’s intentions. The United States, along with other countries, has viewed Russia through the prism of the 1990s, when the Russian military was in shambles and the Russian government was paralyzed. The United States has not seen Russia make a decisive military move beyond its borders since the Afghan war of the 1970s-1980s. The Russians had systematically avoided such moves for years. The United States had assumed that the Russians would not risk the consequences of an invasion.

If this was the case, then it points to the central reality of this situation: The Russians had changed dramatically, along with the balance of power in the region. They welcomed the opportunity to drive home the new reality, which was that they could invade Georgia and the United States and Europe could not respond. As for risk, they did not view the invasion as risky. Militarily, there was no counter. Economically, Russia is an energy exporter doing quite well — indeed, the Europeans need Russian energy even more than the Russians need to sell it to them. Politically, as we shall see, the Americans needed the Russians more than the Russians needed the Americans. Moscow’s calculus was that this was the moment to strike. The Russians had been building up to it for months, as we have discussed, and they struck.

The Western Encirclement of Russia

To understand Russian thinking, we need to look at two events. The first is the Orange Revolution in Ukraine. From the U.S. and European point of view, the Orange Revolution represented a triumph of democracy and Western influence. From the Russian point of view, as Moscow made clear, the Orange Revolution was a CIA-funded intrusion into the internal affairs of Ukraine, designed to draw Ukraine into NATO and add to the encirclement of Russia. U.S. Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton had promised the Russians that NATO would not expand into the former Soviet Union empire.

That promise had already been broken in 1998 by NATO’s expansion to Poland, Hungary and the Czech Republic — and again in the 2004 expansion, which absorbed not only the rest of the former Soviet satellites in what is now Central Europe, but also the three Baltic states, which had been components of the Soviet Union.

The Russians had tolerated all that, but the discussion of including Ukraine in NATO represented a fundamental threat to Russia’s national security. It would have rendered Russia indefensible and threatened to destabilize the Russian Federation itself. When the United States went so far as to suggest that Georgia be included as well, bringing NATO deeper into the Caucasus, the Russian conclusion — publicly stated — was that the United States in particular intended to encircle and break Russia.

The second and lesser event was the decision by Europe and the United States to back Kosovo’s separation from Serbia. The Russians were friendly with Serbia, but the deeper issue for Russia was this: The principle of Europe since World War II was that, to prevent conflict, national borders would not be changed. If that principle were violated in Kosovo, other border shifts — including demands by various regions for independence from Russia — might follow. The Russians publicly and privately asked that Kosovo not be given formal independence, but instead continue its informal autonomy, which was the same thing in practical terms. Russia’s requests were ignored.

From the Ukrainian experience, the Russians became convinced that the United States was engaged in a plan of strategic encirclement and strangulation of Russia. From the Kosovo experience, they concluded that the United States and Europe were not prepared to consider Russian wishes even in fairly minor affairs. That was the breaking point. If Russian desires could not be accommodated even in a minor matter like this, then clearly Russia and the West were in conflict. For the Russians, as we said, the question was how to respond. Having declined to respond in Kosovo, the Russians decided to respond where they had all the cards: in South Ossetia.

Moscow had two motives, the lesser of which was as a tit-for-tat over Kosovo. If Kosovo could be declared independent under Western sponsorship, then South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the two breakaway regions of Georgia, could be declared independent under Russian sponsorship. Any objections from the United States and Europe would simply confirm their hypocrisy. This was important for internal Russian political reasons, but the second motive was far more important.

Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin once said that the fall of the Soviet Union was a geopolitical disaster. This didn’t mean that he wanted to retain the Soviet state; rather, it meant that the disintegration of the Soviet Union had created a situation in which Russian national security was threatened by Western interests. As an example, consider that during the Cold War, St. Petersburg was about 1,200 miles away from a NATO country. Today it is about 60 miles away from Estonia, a NATO member. The disintegration of the Soviet Union had left Russia surrounded by a group of countries hostile to Russian interests in various degrees and heavily influenced by the United States, Europe and, in some cases, China.

Resurrecting the Russian Sphere

Putin did not want to re-establish the Soviet Union, but he did want to re-establish the Russian sphere of influence in the former Soviet Union region. To accomplish that, he had to do two things. First, he had to re-establish the credibility of the Russian army as a fighting force, at least in the context of its region. Second, he had to establish that Western guarantees, including NATO membership, meant nothing in the face of Russian power. He did not want to confront NATO directly, but he did want to confront and defeat a power that was closely aligned with the United States, had U.S. support, aid and advisers and was widely seen as being under American protection. Georgia was the perfect choice.

By invading Georgia as Russia did (competently if not brilliantly), Putin re-established the credibility of the Russian army. But far more importantly, by doing this Putin revealed an open secret: While the United States is tied down in the Middle East, American guarantees have no value. This lesson is not for American consumption. It is something that, from the Russian point of view, the Ukrainians, the Balts and the Central Asians need to digest. Indeed, it is a lesson Putin wants to transmit to Poland and the Czech Republic as well. The United States wants to place ballistic missile defense installations in those countries, and the Russians want them to understand that allowing this to happen increases their risk, not their security.

The Russians knew the United States would denounce their attack. This actually plays into Russian hands. The more vocal senior leaders are, the greater the contrast with their inaction, and the Russians wanted to drive home the idea that American guarantees are empty talk.

The Russians also know something else that is of vital importance: For the United States, the Middle East is far more important than the Caucasus, and Iran is particularly important. The United States wants the Russians to participate in sanctions against Iran. Even more importantly, they do not want the Russians to sell weapons to Iran, particularly the highly effective S-300 air defense system. Georgia is a marginal issue to the United States; Iran is a central issue. The Russians are in a position to pose serious problems for the United States not only in Iran, but also with weapons sales to other countries, like Syria.

Therefore, the United States has a problem — it either must reorient its strategy away from the Middle East and toward the Caucasus, or it has to seriously limit its response to Georgia to avoid a Russian counter in Iran. Even if the United States had an appetite for another war in Georgia at this time, it would have to calculate the Russian response in Iran — and possibly in Afghanistan (even though Moscow’s interests there are currently aligned with those of Washington).

In other words, the Russians have backed the Americans into a corner. The Europeans, who for the most part lack expeditionary militaries and are dependent upon Russian energy exports, have even fewer options. If nothing else happens, the Russians will have demonstrated that they have resumed their role as a regional power. Russia is not a global power by any means, but a significant regional power with lots of nuclear weapons and an economy that isn’t all too shabby at the moment. It has also compelled every state on the Russian periphery to re-evaluate its position relative to Moscow. As for Georgia, the Russians appear ready to demand the resignation of President Mikhail Saakashvili. Militarily, that is their option. That is all they wanted to demonstrate, and they have demonstrated it.

The war in Georgia, therefore, is Russia’s public return to great power status. This is not something that just happened — it has been unfolding ever since Putin took power, and with growing intensity in the past five years. Part of it has to do with the increase of Russian power, but a great deal of it has to do with the fact that the Middle Eastern wars have left the United States off-balance and short on resources. As we have written, this conflict created a window of opportunity. The Russian goal is to use that window to assert a new reality throughout the region while the Americans are tied down elsewhere and dependent on the Russians. The war was far from a surprise; it has been building for months. But the geopolitical foundations of the war have been building since 1992. Russia has been an empire for centuries. The last 15 years or so were not the new reality, but simply an aberration that would be rectified. And now it is being rectified.

A Stratfor Intelligence Report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russia didn't really invade, they started to fight back because georgians atatcked the south osetia with arty. and kileld russia peacekeepers.

You are ignoring what happened during the days before the invasion actually happened. Read up on it. The Russians straight failed their peacekeeping mission. If the Russians weren't so bias and they actually tried to halt the cross-border fighting that was happening before the invasion through diplomatic means, the invasion wouldn't had happened.

Ossetia was forced to be part of Georgia by same peoples who forced Georgia to be part of USSR.

In 1991 Georgia become independent from Russia. 2008 Ossetia become independent from Georgia.

What the problem?

Read ch_123's post on the last page. Then again, it isn't actually "independence" because the other half of Ossetia, North Ossetia, is in Russia. Odds are they want to be reunited with them and that means they need to join Russia or North Ossetia leaves Russia.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]Read ch_123's post on the last page. Then again, it isn't actually "independence" because the other half of Ossetia, North Ossetia, is in Russia. Odds are they want to be reunited with them and that means they need to join Russia or North Ossetia leaves Russia.

It no one else business what they will do after… they have right to be independent, that’s all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

FOX is crap, but it's quite fun that Georgians don't appreciate them either and shoot at their journalists. Probably not happy about western support. There was peace for decades, when people lived together in the USSR. There was no need for internal nationalism. Now there's only ethnic hate that's used by the imperialist powers. They divide and conquer. The Georgian people want good relations with Russia. Not some US-puppet.

Wonder if we'll read about the FOX incident. The Georgian reporter that was hit by an air-gun made it to the first page.

I've seen pictures taken by real journalists. The war is horrible, very many dead, what were they thinking when they shelled Tshinkvali? The Georgian president is a complete idiot. And western journalist only take pictures of the same house over and over again in Gori. What about the real zone of conflict?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
One day I will be the one to laugh. The people of South America, Nepal, Cyprus are already. There your kind of people have been stripped of all their US-backed power. The american economy is going down for good, and with it the entire capitalist system. It might take decades, but we'll be there. And we'll celebrate.

Well one good thing is that you'd finally shutup

But on the other hand, in your place will come those that will be just like you but will stand for freedom instead of tyranny - and you will crush them and suppress their ideas and beliefs because, after all, they are different from yours.

Not at all.

I support the freedom from oppression while my opponents support the freedom to oppress. Either you own the means of production or you don't.

Quote[/b] ]Whatever dude, get a job and contribute like everyone else or shut the hell up.

Who says I don't have a job? Just because people (Baff1) write I don't have one, it doesn't mean it's true, you know. He just needed to assume that for his lack of arguments or his view of the world wouldn't be complete.

He probably thinks that a majority of the people in Cyprus, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, Nicaragua etc don't have a job because they are socialists.

I'm not going to discuss about myself, because it isn't interesting, it is off-topic and I have no reason to do that.

You know what, I fully apologize for my remark.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It no one else business what they will do after… they have right to be independent, that’s all

By what standards?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First of all south ossetia belongs to ossetians, and they decide what they want not georgians. They want to be part of russia, they even voted, but nooo georgia wants them.

...

"South Ossetians nearly unanimously approved a referendum on November 12, 2006 opting for independence from Georgia. The referendum was hugely popular, winning between 98 and 99 percent of the ballots, flag waving and celebration marked were seen across South Ossetia, but elsewhere observers were less enthusiastic. International critics claimed that the move could worsen regional tensions, and the Tblisi government thoroughly discounted the results."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia

Where is democracy? when 99% had voted...

Right, but where does one draw a line and say at what point people should stop breaking up into smaller groups? For example, if I organized an election for the road I live on to declare independence from the rest of Ireland, would Russia send over a few tank battalions to back up my cause? Furthermore, what about Chechnya? As I understand it, a majority of Checnyans supported their claim to independence. Why did the Russians crush them with force, but support the South Ossetians.

As I understand it, Chechen troops are part of the Russian Deployment.

Chechenya seems to be down with the South Ossetians.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says I don't have a job? Just because people (Baff1) write I don't have one, it doesn't mean it's true, you know. He just needed to assume that for his lack of arguments or his view of the world wouldn't be complete.

He probably thinks that a majority of the people in Cyprus, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, Nicaragua etc don't have a job because they are socialists.

You talk like a student, because you are one.

People make assumptions about you, because you are too scared to tell them about yourself. You are unwilling to fill in the blanks because you don't feel it supports your argument.

You think your idea's should have enough weight of their own, without giving them to us in the context of your life.

And they don't.

No one is impressed by your idea's.

We have nothing to learn from them.

They have all been thought before, and we are all aware those idea's exist.

If you have some personal experience to share, some first hand insight, then you would be in a position we could all learn from.

But you don't.

You talk like a teenager who is all intellect and no experience.

You don't like people making assumptions about you?

Tough luck, when you make preposterous claims without the personal experience to back them up, that's what you get.

You want your idea's to be taken seriously and given merit simply because you have thought them, and that's not how it works.

There is a big difference between intellect and wisdom.

So instead of trying to preach to people who have actual experience of working and investing, instead of trying to explain how it works to them, go out and get a job first.

You have to learn before you can teach.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Russia didn't really invade, they started to fight back because georgians atatcked the south osetia with arty. and kileld russia peacekeepers.

You are ignoring what happened during the days before the invasion actually happened. Read up on it. The Russians straight failed their peacekeeping mission. If the Russians weren't so bias and they actually tried to halt the cross-border fighting that was happening before the invasion through diplomatic means, the invasion wouldn't had happened.

Er...

Isn't this the norm for every peacekeeping operation in history ever.

If we weren't expecting peacekeepers to get shot at, we wouldn't have given them tanks and guns.

It's not just the Russians that have been acting out of opportunism.

Saakashvili escalated a flashpoint situation by increasing his troop deployments to the region.

When the spark went off, instead of standing back, he mounted a full scale assault on a population centre using heavy artillery.

The world is a better place for him not being in control of a heavily equiped army.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]You talk like a teenager who is all intellect and no experience.

You don't like people making assumptions about you?

Tough luck, when you make preposterous claims without the personal experience to back them up, that's what you get.

You have no idea what you're talking about. You can make any assumptions you want, but I won't respond to them.

Arguments are arguments no matter who presents them. Who I am or what I do isn't interesting.

They've dedicated a wikipedia page to your logical fallacy:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Ad H. "consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject."

Balanced Article:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol....885.ece

Gori not in ruins:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anybody read the article I posted above? Explains a lot.

Shadow NX

Quote[/b] ]About time someone posted that cartoon, sums things up pretty nicely me thinks...

That cartoon was already posted by Baff1. Do people even read threads?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Who says I don't have a job? Just because people (Baff1) write I don't have one, it doesn't mean it's true, you know. He just needed to assume that for his lack of arguments or his view of the world wouldn't be complete.

He probably thinks that a majority of the people in Cyprus, Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador, Nepal, Nicaragua etc don't have a job because they are socialists.

You talk like a student, because you are one.

People make assumptions about you, because you are too scared to tell them about yourself. You are unwilling to fill in the blanks because you don't feel it supports your argument.

You think your idea's should have enough weight of their own, without giving them to us in the context of your life.

And they don't.

No one is impressed by your idea's.

We have nothing to learn from them.

They have all been thought before, and we are all aware those idea's exist.

If you have some personal experience to share, some first hand insight, then you would be in a position we could all learn from.

But you don't.

You talk like a teenager who is all intellect and no experience.

You don't like people making assumptions about you?

Tough luck, when you make preposterous claims without the personal experience to back them up, that's what you get.

You want your idea's to be taken seriously and given merit simply because you have thought them, and that's not how it works.

There is a big difference between intellect and wisdom.

So instead of trying to preach to people who have actual experience of working and investing, instead of trying to explain how it works to them, go out and get a job first.

You have to learn before you can teach.

Excellent post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Arguments are arguments no matter who presents them. Who I am or what I do isn't interesting.

Neither are your arguments.

I am only really intrested in your experiences.

Or the opinions you hold that have been formed upon them.

I'm not really intrested in arguing for argument sake.

I like to share knowledge.

This is an excellent forum with not only an abundance of military fans, but with a highly cross cultural spread of opinions.

There is an opportunity here to see events from any number of different personal and national perspectives.

There are any number of experts here on any number of subjects. People with actual experience and the insights related to those experiences.

Honestly I'd rather hear about your day at school mate. Which teachers you like etc.

A student at the back of my class thought that 1+1=3.

He wanted to argue it with the maths teacher.

Given a mask of anomynity, the maths teacher and the student both faceless behind the internet, the student thinks that his opinion that 1+1=3 has equal gravity to the maths teachers assertion that 1+1=2.

That this particular subject is worthy of argument.

All men are created equal right? Everyone is entitled to their own opinion?

But he is wrong.

He is not an idiot because he is wrong, he is an idiot because he argued when he should have been listening.

If your arguments aren't based on experience they are valueless. You bring nothing to the table.

We don't need you to google link us to things other people thought. We can do that ourselves.

The only thing you have of any value to the people you are talking to is your own personal perspective.

Your experiences and the insights they have afforded you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This US missile defence shield in Poland could make some very serious trouble. It is really needed against terrorist or another "Axis of evil"? imho more a bad poker game between US and Russia. Reminds me a bit of the Cuban Missile Crisis. I guess most people even in Poland don't feel safer with such an "defence shield" in neighbourhood.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

About the ABM shield, I'll quote somebody from another forum when this same topic came into play and why the small ammount of rockets:

Quote[/b] ]If you follow conventional wisdow (as much as there can be such a thing with nukes) a full scale nuclear exchange is preceeded by a limited exchange which escalates. I think the ABM sheild is to prevent a limited exchange and buy the US time to either implement its "first strike" policy or allow a climbdown (cos you can't really climb down if a NATO capital was nuked)

Also, Georgia can kiss NATO goodbye now. NATO won't want to take them under their wing now that they pulled this off, they should've stalled the situation and turned to the UN, not go in guns blazing, foolish thing to do, a waste of human lives, resources and independence. Russia will not let Georgia alone now and NATO will not take Georgia in because of the heavy Russian presence and without a doubt heavy political influence in the future.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this  

×