If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CNN)   Russia, on Georgia withdrawl: "If I would ask you in response to the same question how fast the American forces can leave Iraq, for example, the answer would be as soon as we have guarantees for peace and security there"   (cnn.com) divider line 333
    More: Amusing  
•       •       •

7444 clicks; posted to Main » on 17 Aug 2008 at 5:04 PM (5 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



333 Comments   (+0 »)
   

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all
 
2008-08-17 06:37:40 PM
nerfball:

It was your friend Bush that flouted international norms regarding sovereignty. Here we are, the putative guardians of such things.

.
 
2008-08-17 06:38:41 PM
gambitsworld: No, the US went to Iraq was for control of the oil, and to make administration officials (Bush, Cheney, Rummy, etc) and their friends rich.

So true it should be obvious. The reason we have built so many bases in Iraq should be obvious too. The next world conflict will be fought there over oil and we want to have set up shop first. We have no intention of ever leaving. Making a handful of rich farks richer was just a fun side effect.

Not that anyone asked but, My solution for the US: Pull out of the whole area. Dump REAL money into alternative energy, get some offshore drilling going, Build nuclear power plants, tariff the shiat out of imports, support blue collar jobs and agriculture in America, board up the windows and hunker down for the next couple decades and let the world go to hell all by itself.
 
2008-08-17 06:38:46 PM
i77.photobucket.com
 
2008-08-17 06:40:32 PM
Ender's: Ok. Then why was Western Europe (for the most part) against the U.S. when we decided to invade Iraq? If they are so Oil hungry, wouldn't they have been for it? That's kinda inconsistent, isn't it?

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.
 
2008-08-17 06:40:41 PM
Is this that lack of moral authority people keep talking about?

/It is hard to tell other countries to respect international law when the US only does so when its convenient.
 
2008-08-17 06:42:24 PM
Wow... we all knew the US was low on credibility, but they can't even ask a country to do what they've already said they'll do, without it being thrown back in their faces.
 
2008-08-17 06:42:35 PM
nuclear_asshat: Pull your head out of your ass. Georgia doesn't have oil to speak of in any real quantity. They have a pipeline that runs through Georgia. That is how they make their money It's the only competitor to Russia's pipeline system.

Overeact much? Having a bad week?

I know Georgia only has the pipeline, it's what I meant. Next time I'm be more specific. Xanax is your friend.
 
2008-08-17 06:43:15 PM
a lion in a sidecar: Alphax: a lion in a sidecar: Regaining the moral high ground in the eyes of the world is going to be far less important than it is now to folks living in cold states this winter.

States like PA, MI, OH, WI.

If the next election was in February, McCain would win easily. In November it's going to be damn close.

Pray tell why cold weather would make anyone like McCain any better.


Short-term pocketbook decision - gas prices will seem like a minor inconvenience compared to heating oil prices next January for a lot of Americans. People will be using credit cards more and more, if they have the option, and will have no idea how to pay the resulting bills.

The 20% who are on the fence will vote for the guy who seems most likely to look out for America First, and do whatever is necessary to lower the oil bills, even if it betrays our supposed national principles.

But in November, most of those heating oil bills won't yet be a reality.


You don't explain why anyone would vote for McCain.
 
2008-08-17 06:45:34 PM
Annamonster

Thanks. Like I said, I didn't doubt that information. Was just telling you for future reference. I am lazy too :D
 
2008-08-17 06:47:28 PM
Bringing democracy to the Middle East (while a noble cause in theory) is an excuse easy to dismiss when Iraq has the resources it does.

Regardless of whether our motives are noble or not, we did put ourselves smack dabb in the promised land for oil. With the USSR crumbled we thought we had the only shovel in the sandbox. Having overextended ourselves, Russia makes a move that strives to keep the US in check. Much as our two party system and three branch government isn't.

There will be little discussion about right and wrong from Russia with this one, they wanted a pipeline and a choke point for trade and they got it. As many have pointed out it can be viewed similarly to what the US did in Iraq.

It's funny to watch the conservative news sources so seemingly shocked about this, but I think it's really the realization that we can't afford to stick our dick out in this one. How long has it been since we couldn't do that effectively? Bush and co. have been pretty quiet on this. Sure doesn't seem like much diplomacy going on past the finger wagging.

China, it's your move. After that Pakistan and India can start bumping uglies, and we haven't heard from the Jonger lately.
 
2008-08-17 06:53:35 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 06:55:31 PM
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
 
2008-08-17 06:56:24 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 06:56:36 PM
A better analogy would be Kosovo.

The US tears apart a small country allied to Russia; Russia tears apart a small country allied to the US.

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.
 
2008-08-17 06:57:23 PM
Ender's: Annamonster

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


Well now I feel like a jackass for being a jackass. :p
 
2008-08-17 06:57:44 PM
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!
 
2008-08-17 07:02:17 PM
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.




 
2008-08-17 07:03:28 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 07:06:19 PM
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
 
2008-08-17 07:06:39 PM
Bush put America in a really shiatty situation on an international level. And when those Rednecks say, "fark the opinions of the rest of the world." I wonder how they would respond if Russia showed the same approach, which by the way they did with that whole radioactive poisoning incident.

Look back at all the votes of all the people who voted for Bush, then send them to the front lines of Iraq and Georgia, and see how much of a difference they can make.
 
2008-08-17 07:08:06 PM
That is amusing; +1 for use of appropriate tag.
 
2008-08-17 07:15:44 PM
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!
 
2008-08-17 07:18:22 PM
pvd021: Bush put America in a really shiatty situation on an international level. And when those Rednecks say, "fark the opinions of the rest of the world." I wonder how they would respond if Russia showed the same approach, which by the way they did with that whole radioactive poisoning incident.

Then why are you wondering?
 
2008-08-17 07:32:37 PM
Here's the difference:

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

www.sanfranciscosentinel.com

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

www.greatdreams.com

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

www.roystpierre.com

the russian citizens are proud of their invasion.
 
2008-08-17 07:34:30 PM
Fortunately, we have a genius as president, and another genius as Secretary of State. I have no doubt they'll figure this out.
 
2008-08-17 07:35:11 PM
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'.
 
2008-08-17 07:39:04 PM
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
 
2008-08-17 07:40:08 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 07:40:20 PM
RobertBruce: Wow. the russians just get dumber every year.

Yea, but, thx to Bush, we've overtaken them. And Rice.
 
2008-08-17 07:40:53 PM
www.comics.com
 
2008-08-17 07:43:35 PM
Has Bush responded? Or is he STILL on vacation?
 
2008-08-17 07:43:59 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 07:45:44 PM
If only someone could just convince our leaders to read the opinions of the experts on Fark Dot Com.
 
2008-08-17 07:49:25 PM
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.?
 
2008-08-17 07:51:24 PM
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!
 
2008-08-17 07:53:40 PM
a lion in a sidecar: If only someone could just convince our leaders to read the opinions of the experts on Fark Dot Com.

Or, if they would consult Larry, Moe and Curly, things would improve.
 
2008-08-17 07:55:33 PM
a lion in a sidecar: If only someone could just convince our leaders to read the opinions of the experts on Fark Dot Com.

Hell, it would probably help.
 
2008-08-17 07:55:34 PM
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.?


It's no longer up to the US. We're out of ammo, unless we can use Rice's ugliness as a weapon.
 
2008-08-17 07:56:21 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 07:56:48 PM
Anyway, Bush has brush to clear. Now watch this drive.
 
2008-08-17 07:58:42 PM
Inflatable Rhetoric: Anyway, Bush has brush to clear. Now watch this drive.

I forgot to say, "Mission Accomplished"
 
2008-08-17 08:01:04 PM
SlothB77: 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.


I don't think you could possibly be more wrong. Of course it will take a while for protesters to get something going. So it will be a while yet before we know.

The only way I can think of for Russia to avoid protest would be if they manage to completely control the information people get.
 
2008-08-17 08:01:51 PM
Ender's: 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.

And I thought the fact that there was a direct pipeline already constructed and operational running through Georgia and this was an immediate threat was obviously from Iraq, which would have, and clearly has, suffered severe infrastructure damage during the war as well as facing logistical difficulties in building a direct supply pipeline to reach European markets.

Or let me present it to you in an example, since you clearly lack the ability to follow basic inferences: You're walking along, minding your own business, and a guy jumps out of an ally and says "You have a choice: You can kick this guy over here in the nuts, and maybe 10 years from now, I'll send you a check for $100. Or you can kick that guy over there in the nuts, and if you don't, I'm going to take $50 from you." Which one are you going to moralize about and which one will you pick?

Ender's: 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."

Ummmm....right. He's brokered the cease-fire, now he's saying the Russians need to honor it. This is a separate issue from the initial invasion. NYT.com won't load, but there was a magnificent quote in there about Europe's opinion on the matter either yesterday or today.
 
rka
2008-08-17 08:02:17 PM
Inflatable Rhetoric: It's no longer up to the US. We're out of ammo, unless we can use Rice's ugliness as a weapon.

It was never up to us and never would have been up to us, even if we weren't involved in Iraq/Afghanistan.

If we weren't in Iraq, Georgia wouldn't be. If Georgia's not in Iraq, this isn't even a debate for US interests.

Let Europe face down Russia if they want their natural gas on the cheap. Let them propose some sort of sanctions or military action. Maybe we'll participate, maybe we won't.
 
2008-08-17 08:06:44 PM
inebriated brain: As opposed to the coalition of the countries that want to suck off the US teat so they'll go into any war with a thousand or less troops to make it appear multilateral

Appearance of? The numbers they send are irrelevant. When a country sends 10 troops it is an acknowledgment by their government that the leader ( USA ) is just in its action. I don't see anyone coming to help russia beat down this 'rouge' nation, quite the contrary.


The problem with your argument is that you yourself are a complete idiot.
 
2008-08-17 08:06:50 PM
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.
 
2008-08-17 08:08:14 PM
I think our bigger problem is Russian reaction to the missle defense sheild we are setting up in Poland. We have Russia outright saying they are revamping their nuclear capability and not afriad to use it.

Combine that with U.S. gov telling the Russians that they have no right to do the exact same bullshiat we are currently doing and you have the catalyst that just made our international relations situation ten times worse.

Grand job you did there, George and Company. These hacks should be kicked out of office TOMORROW.
 
2008-08-17 08:11:12 PM
RobertBruce: 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.


Let me write this big, so you won't miss it: You're both morons. Seriously, asshole, are you ACTUALLY trying to use U.N. Resolutions to explain why the Russian attack on Georgia is "different" than the American attack on Iraq? THE GODDAMN U.N. OPPOSED THE AMERICAN INVASION OF IRAQ! Are you really so frikkin' stupid that you don't remember that?
 
2008-08-17 08:11:57 PM
Wait til they start waterboarding.
 
2008-08-17 08:12:17 PM
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 333 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | » | Last | Show all



This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report