Annamonster

Thanks. Like I said, I didn't doubt that information. Was just telling you for future reference. I am lazy too :D

I know you're all busy arguing about who has the moral high ground in this matter, but for those interested, here are some photos and screencaps of the Russia/S.Ossetia/Georgia War many of which you won't see in any western media outlets:
Link (new window) WARNING! Extremely graphic. Not Safe For Work/Weak Stomachs.

A lot of the photos seem to be taken from a Russian media or perhaps military perspective, but I could be wrong. I don't exactly know why, but I also advise Firefox and something to disable javascript. Just a hunch I guess.

/War is hell

Alphax: You don't explain why anyone would vote for McCain.

Most Totally Independent Voters™ don't, they just biatch and moan about the coming socialist revolution if McCain's not elected. Wait long enough, and we'll start hearing snide comments about The One.

Argh2: What this really shows is the dubious wisdom of treating some barely housebroken politically unstable pseudo-state as our new best friend.

They played Bush to get US backing, fair enough. But Republicans have a history of gullibility - remember the Nicaraguan Contras ("Moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers") or Achmed Chalabi (Iranian spy) and the Iraqi National Congress, who were going to walk in and set up a friendly government? Republicans keep falling for this shiat, and then call the Democrats naive for being skeptical.

Bush should have been more careful about extending US backing to a country with ongoing internal and border disputes, especially one whose national hero is Josef farking Stalin.

This doesn't mean Russia is right - sometimes, no one is really right. It's not black and white, and the "they did it first" shiat could go back centuries.

We are too in love with the idea that everything is right or wrong, black or white, and that winning a war settles an issue. For most of the world and most of human history, that isn't the case.

No. WE'RE RIGHT! THEY'RE WRONG!

That's how it has to be, when you talk about geopolitics. Our friends against their friends.

Never mind that we supported friends who turned into enemies a few years later when the winds changed. Never mind that several of our closest allies used to be our most bitter rivals. How DARE you suggest that things are shades of GREY!

HOW DARE YOU SIR!

Lusiphur

First, why are you looking for consistency in foreign policy?

Second, the oil is part of the equation. The other part is that everyone distrusts Russia. The former Soviet states bear a huge grudge, and NATO was set up for the express purpose of containing Russia. As far as most of Europe being against Russia, I think you need to go back and check your facts. France is being rather impartial in the matter, and Germany has chastised Georgia for provoking Russia. Even though both nations are calling for withdrawal, neither one has gone so far as to say that Russia is an "evil empire" to be stopped at all costs. Britain hasn't really done much of anything, and neither has Spain, so we can ignore them for the moment. So now we're left with all the post-soviet states. They, along with the US, are the only ones placing blame solely on the Russians and making with the evil empire rhetoric. Hell, even the Czechs are saying that fault lies on both sides.

Ok, I was only responding to what you purported early on. Lemme requote it for you since you can't seem to remember.

I'll give you three hints:

1) Fuel pipeline in Georgia
2) The other major fuel pipeline to Europe is controlled by Russia
3) Europe gets cold in the winter

That is what I was responding to. You brought it up, not me. I was simply asking why you thought that. No need to get angry and tell me to check my facts insinuating that I am blathering idiot mouthbreather, which I don't appreciate. Certainly didn't level any such reprehensible comments towards you in that fashion. Looks like someone got chucked from the debate team lol.

I need to check my facts, eh? How about Germany being really ticked at Georgia, "GERMANY'S Chancellor Angela Merkel assured Georgia yesterday that it would join Nato as she strongly backed the former Soviet republic in its conflict with Russia.

"Georgia will become a member of Nato if it wants to - and it does want to," she told reporters before talks with Georgian president Mikheil Saakashvili in the capital, Tbilisi.

ben zona: I'd love to see Condi try to explain why the Kosovars deserve independence whereas the South Ossetians and the Abkhazians don't. Georgia and Serbia are democratic more or less to the same degree, so that canard won't cut it.

I'd love to see Condi explain how to remove a wrapper from a Twinkie without farking it up.

Crap, my html skills are lacking today, my links didn't prove out, but here's one from the French President regarding the situation, you can tell he's PISSED at Georgia, "French President Nicolas Sarkozy, who brokered the truce, warned President Dmitry Medvedev by telephone Sunday that Russia would face "serious consequences" from the European Union if the soldiers and tanks stayed put."

Lemme try this again with the link

belgianguy: Although I've never been a fan of the USA's way of dealing with conflicts, it's good to feel in your own pants from time to time to check if your balls are still there.

Those aren't pillows!

Here's the difference:

you won't see the russian people protesting through moscow like this:



and you won't see them protesting vladimir putin like this:



and you won't see them saying no blood for oil like this:



the russian citizens are proud of their invasion.

Ok, now who wants to take bets that the Russian Military will actually leave on Monday? I am giving a generous over-under.


/don't think it'll happen

you know what really gets me about the Russian occupation of these territories?
They no more want to be part of Russia than they want to be part of Georgia. They're figuring that dealing with the Russians would be a lot less of a pain in the ass than dealing with the Georgians.

I hope they're not wrong.

mouell: Forgot the 17 UN resolutions or the condition(s) of a ceasefire in 1992 (Gulf war I)? I thought so.

Wow, the excuses have gone retro. I haven't seen that one in almost three years.

Also reading on the news how G.W. and Condi have responded to this being called "The Hurricane Katrina of foreign relations" LOL GJ Administration, GJ indeed!

mouell: A smart answer for retards who have no actual grasp of reality/history.

Forgot the 17 UN resolutions or the condition(s) of a ceasefire in 1992 (Gulf war I)? I thought so.

You can now continue watching the rest of 'Jackass The Movie XXX'.

That was my point. thank you, you're a lot more succinct than I was.

stpickrell: All right. Let us pretend we do nothing and stand down, as the Russophiles here wish. Georgia will lose its breakaway provinces and will 'convince' Georgians to accept someone other than Shevardnadze or Saakashvili.

Oh, nobody's talking about "standing down". It's just some gallows humor about Bush's chickens coming home to roost.

stpickrell: All right. Let us pretend we do nothing and stand down, as the Russophiles here wish. Georgia will lose its breakaway provinces and will 'convince' Georgians to accept someone other than Shevardnadze or Saakashvili.

What then? What is the 'ideal' Russia policy -- should we focus on Russia and ignore the former Soviet satellites as Russia (theoretically) can do more for us viz a viz Iran, Iraq, North Korea, etc.?

Ideally? We need to think about what is going to profit us best with our trading partners.

Trade has been the best tactic with the former Soviet states. All of them. And China as well. We sort of backed off this route a while back.

That doesn't mean helping install corrupt regimes in former Soviet territories. The concerns with Kosovo are somewhat valid. Rather than looking at every situation and taking the opposite position than Russia, we might consider what might actually benefit us both? Would that be crazy? Much like we do when we consider policy with our NATO allies.

As opposed to looking at Russia policy as an US vs Them sort of game, we might do better to bring them into the community of nations by helping establish them as legitimate trade partners.

We are doing so with China, though we are having some difficulty in that they feel perfectly within their rights to flout labor standards as well as international copyright. But we are making inroads.

Ideally, we might look to trying to take less of an adversarial stance for the sake of saying, "You're wrong Ivan!" and see where we actually might have grounds for working together. As opposed to "appeasement" it might be better to look at where our interests actually lie, as opposed to taking a knee jerk stance that if Russia wants something, we have to oppose it, and visa versa.

Hardly means agreeing on every damn thing, but a fundamental shift in our approach of opposing them because they say they want one thing, and standing for the other, might be more in order.

And right now, because of that stance, we have the Russians often doing the same damn thing. They oppose us, because we want something, they have to shiat in our farina as well.

It's not appeasement if we just stop playing the stupid ass game.