Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 8/9/08 08:42 PM, Phobotech wrote:

At 8/9/08 08:36 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 8/9/08 08:31 PM, Phobotech wrote: What the hell would Russian need with Ossetia? What tactical or economic advantage could they gain, or is this mainly just a political attack to Georgian Allies and something to stave attention to the Olympics?

What's China or the US doing about all of this?

China and the US have called for a ceasefire. Many South Ossetians want South Ossetia to join with North Ossetia which is part of Russia. Many South Ossetians have Russian passports. Their defending their citizens/potential future citizens. Also, underlying it they are also working to build more influence and show other Central Asian nations who's boss, but their main cause is justified.

China and the US calling for Russian forces to stand-down, or calling for their own forces to take no action in the matter?

If this was really a matter of citizenship, why couldn't Georgia and Russia settled this without getting innocent people killed in the crossfire? Wouldn't Georgia be better off merging with a larger Super-Continent anyway...or is Russia no better off then they are?

Something still doesn't add up... The UN is taking no action, our military SHOULDN'T take action, but with the Administration in charge, I wouldn't be the least-bit surprised if Bush mobilizes.

I'm gonna be honest, I don't like to think about what this incident could lead up to, and I don't think a lot of World Leaders would disagree. Keep the updates coming, please.

This won't lead up to a big-scale war, don't worry. Not with the Olympics on and a US presidential election coming. At most other small Central Asian countries will join in.
Current casualties for both sides:
Russian side: Georgian side:
21 soldiers dead, 70 soldiers killed/wounded,
70 soldiers wounded, 12-80 civilians killed
1,300-2,000 civilians killed,
30,000 refugees in Russia

Sources: BBC, CNN, CBC, Wikipedia, Russia Today, other internet sites

Russia isn't the one targeting civilian areas, with the exeption of one port town, where most of the damage was around unpopulated docks.

At 8/9/08 07:58 PM, adrshepard wrote: Two reasons:
The person who started this thread is a Georgian, and Russia hasn't been all that positive about the US lately.
When poor countries use inaccurate bombardment methods, they are just doing the best they can with what they have. When comparatively advanced countries reply with the exact same method, they are being barbaric and unlawful.

My thoughts exactly. Russia, along with China, has been challenging the US's top dog position in the world, hence the almost all negative media coverage of those countries. I took my stats on kills from the BBC aswell, a source that has a reputation of anti-Russian attitude, so the real casualties could be even more lopsided. While in the latest news, Georgian military deaths are now 130, due to their loss during the fighting in the South Ossetian capital. I don't think this makes them any righter though, because this was fighting between military troops, not a bombing or anything. Russia reports that civilian casualties on the South Ossetian side are now 2,000, because many wounded have been unable to get to the mobile hospitals Russia has set-up beside the border. So far, the only crimes Russia has comitted against civilians is the bombing of two towns, one of which was were Georgian troops were gathering. The other is Russians first real atrocity, they bombed a port town. Still doesn't equal what the Georgians have done though.

At 8/9/08 08:31 PM, Phobotech wrote: What the hell would Russian need with Ossetia? What tactical or economic advantage could they gain, or is this mainly just a political attack to Georgian Allies and something to stave attention to the Olympics?

What's China or the US doing about all of this?

China and the US have called for a ceasefire. Many South Ossetians want South Ossetia to join with North Ossetia which is part of Russia. Many South Ossetians have Russian passports. Their defending their citizens/potential future citizens. Also, underlying it they are also working to build more influence and show other Central Asian nations who's boss, but their main cause is justified.

I don't think performance in a sporting event determines how powerful a country is, but if you look back the US has the most medals in history and it's the most powerful nation. Russia/USSR follow close behind, and there the former second superpower/possible new superpower. China has started gaining more medals now that they are growing power. Not to say this is a good indicator of power, but it is kinda eerie. Maybe because strong countries can afford better training?

The Church and it's followers denied the Earth was round at first too. Same thing with a lot of scientific discoveries that we now know are true. However, only after everyone believed in those discoveries, some priest said "Oh, look, it was in the Bible all along as a metaphor!" When everyone believes in evolution, they'll find the way to show that the Bible supposedly hinted at it all along. Just you wait. The cycle will go on forever until someone find concrete evidence in favor or against the existance of a God, but who knows if that'll ever happen. Intelligent design is just a way to slow down the point when everyone believes in evolution: by creating a theory that is slightly more scientifically possible than pure creationalism, to draw the moderate religious people who might otherwhise side with scientific fact.

I don't see how one country is so much better than the other. It's not like being born in the US is so much better than being born in France. They both have good things and bad things about them. Your arguments are foolish. You say nothing that indicates the US is better than France, rather you state where France has failed compared to other countries, dispite the fact the France fares better in some of those areas. An example is the statement about medicare. You respond with saying how France falls short of a EU standard, dispite faring better than the US in that area. Also, you begin by insulting how the French person you are replying to doesn't speak good English. Am I the only that can see how stupid that is?

If we lower ourselves down to their level we lose our greatest advantage:
Morality. The international community supported us when we attacked Afghanistan, but when we attacked Iraq for little reason we lost a lot of respect and support. I read a thread on another website were someone was protesting China's actions in Tibet. Many replies said "like the US is any better, look at Iraq and Guatanamo". Is that what we want to do? Push other countries away toward nations like China and Russia? I sincerly hope not.

I think it should be legalized. While I think prostitution is wrong, it's wrong to blame it on the prostitute and penalize them under the law. Their lives are probably miserable enough already, this may be the only way out for them. If prostitution is legalized, their quality of living will likely go up. People who normally be too worried about getting arrested would do it for the free cash. That means less human trafficing. Also, with nothing to worry about when it comes to the police, prostitutes would be less likely to go into the hand of oppressive pimps for protection. While the STD issue is present, many countries with legal prostitution actually have lower STD rates, so this may not be as big of an issue as we believe.

At 8/9/08 07:05 PM, butsbutsbutsbutsbuts wrote: Communists come in many shapes, names and sizes and you need to be on the look out for them. Have you heard of socialists? Perhaps social democrats? Democratic socialists? Leninists? Trotskyists? Maoists? Marxists? Anarchists? Social communists? Anarcho-capitalists? Anarcho-communists? Anarcho-liberals? They like to say they are all different but they all follow the same line of thought stemming from one man, Karl Marx, and they are all based on the same logical fallacy.

There are many practical policies and normal political parties choose which ones to use based on the outcomes they deem desirable, but communists, or whatever they called themselves nowadays, choose only one outcome and keep beating the drum about how that outcome is the only thing that could make the world a better place and how every other consideration is evil for getting in the way. For instance a socialist would look at the motto of france "Liberté, égalité, fraternité" meaning liberty, equality and unity and say "by liberty they mean the freedom of the rich to exploit the poor and by unity they mean united under control of the ruling class" and argue that we should only work for equality!

Ever since marx such groups have been progressively toning down their message so less people view them as insane, nowadays they call themselves "progressives". Fancy that! Claiming to be the sole political group in the world that is "progressive". Looks like they've got a while to go yet.

How can you help? Spread a meme. Just tell someone in your own way what I told you in the second paragraph and possibly the last paragraph. They will be reminded of socialism from time to time and will remember the fatal flaw you told them, they may then feel the need to bring it up in a discussion thus immunising others to the DISEASE of COMMUNISM. Think of it as geology, just as mountains are formed over 100s of years so are hearts and minds. Eventually socialism will die out like it's supposed to. What exactly are they fighting nowadays anyway? Evil capitalists with top hats, monocles and cigars?

While I agree Communism is a failed ideology, and that they go by many names (Leninists, Trotsyites, Maoists, Marxists), your comparision to liberalism, socialism, and progressivism if flawed. Communism is more authoritarian/statist than liberal, because in communist society, both economic freedom and personal freedom are undermined. However, modern liberals, progressives, and some socialists favor greater personal liberty. As for "Liberté, égalité, fraternité", liberal/progressives are not at all opposed to liberty and unity. They better represent personal and individual freedom than their right-wing opponents. Unity is actually a strong-point of Communism, as it encourages the end of class-conflict. While I am not arguing in favor of Communism, I think you are wrong to compare it to modern liberalism and it's offspring, because this is based soley (like Communism) on economic factors, ignoring personal factors.
Otherwhise, I agree with taking a stand against communism, this can be done by people from both sides of the modern political spectrum.

I charge FOX News with corrupting America's youth my encourging lieing and hypocracy by claiming to be fair and balanced while only showing one side!
Seriously, though, FOX only showed the issue from the perspective of the anti-videogame side. A few years ago when I was 13-14, my Mother would tell me that they were making me violent and emotional. She said that I was becoming desensationalized with violence. I said:
"So your saying that a inanimate object is corrupting me, and that me, killing pixels is the same as killing someone in real life? Your the one who can't tell the difference between reality and a video game, why am I the one with the 'problem'?"

I don't see how all this is Russia's and South Ossetia's fault. From what I hear (from the BBC, CBC, and CNN), Georgia invaded South Ossetia. The Georgians say the rebels attacked their villages first, but the current Georgian president has long pledged to retake South Ossetia. 30,000 of South Ossetia's population of 70,000 fled to Russia. When almost half the population has fled, 1,400-1,300 have been killed by Georgian artillery and bombs, many of the refugees and casualties had Russian passports, and 13 Russian peacekeepers dead(who were supposedly "accidently" killed when a Georgian shell landed right on top of their barracks), I would think Russia would be obliged to help out.
The Red Cross reports that 63 wounded remain in the South Ossetia capital's hospital, which has been reduced to only two stories by Georgian bombardment. The only civilians Russia/South Ossetia has killed are the ones who were caught in the crossfire when the Russians bombed a city where Georgia was amassing military. Russia hasn't actually targetting any civilians. Some have been killed, but civilians are expected to be killed during a war. Georgia is the one who has targetted hospitals and other civilian areas. While Russia may not be sqeachy clean when it comes to human rights, they are justified here. Definatly more justified than the US invading Iraq.
Reported casulaties on the Georgian side are around a 100, where as the South Ossetians have suffered 1,400 dead. Could someone tell me why Russia is the bad guy here?