Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Just for your information, there gossips floating around here that certain provocative acts of aggression, that have occurred in the zones of conflicts, were perpetrated by the Georgian government itself in order to publicly vilify the Russian side and, particularly, the "Peacekeepers" it has entrenched there.

Yeah america is doing a great job not expanding and invading countries.

At 7/11/08 04:22 AM, JackPhantasm wrote: Yeah america is doing a great job not expanding and invading countries.

There's no end to why that's an irrelevant post. Don't spout off one sentence about something nobody's talking about. You want to draw parallels, go right ahead, just make a case for them and bring some relevant discussion to the table.

At 7/11/08 09:39 AM, Gunter45 wrote:
There's no end to why that's an irrelevant post. Don't spout off one sentence about something nobody's talking about. You want to draw parallels, go right ahead, just make a case for them and bring some relevant discussion to the table.

You're talking about invading countries.

Aren't you?

At 7/11/08 12:18 PM, JackPhantasm wrote:
You're talking about invading countries.

Aren't you?

Blah. I k now it's way to concise of a point that really fails to accurately illustrate the meaning I was going for.

I'll do it later.

At 7/11/08 12:18 PM, JackPhantasm wrote: You're talking about invading countries.

Aren't you?

For one, not really. It's not an invasion, they're manipulating the political climate around them. They aren't sending an invasion force.

The topic isn't even really just about the general principle. The topic as I laid it out was where Russia's actions are going and what it means for the future of the region and the world.

My point is that if you want to start talking about what other countries are doing, then please make an actual segway into it and include it into the discussion.

Well the point is there.

Want me to illuminate it.

I feel.

That russia has more common sense that we do. I feel as if the whole world is less crazy than us.

That's probably not true though.

It's a big thing to be worried about.

And that is why the bigger countries should lead by pristine example.

I.e. not starting wars for no reason

This heightens tensions across the globe, which is a web of countries. If one country acts irrationally it's going to ricochet.

At 7/10/08 07:27 PM, Gunter45 wrote: That's just it, though. According to Russia's borders, they don't have a legit claim to any of it. Therefore getting any claim to the area would be more than they deserve.

I meant from the perspective of the American electorate. The Russian people and their government will feel that their claim to the wide central region of the Arctic is legit but when it comes down to a battle of wills the issue is whether the US government is willing to make a stand. If the US government decides to support the Canadians in not ceding their claim to the Arctic the best the Russians will be able to get out of the competition is a stalemate. I think the Pentagon will certainly be willing to flex a few muscles if necessary and I think they'll be able to convince any President to not let the Russians get away with seizing more than what the Pentagon feels they should get. I think a President could justify not budging to Russian power play to American voters who are sitting on the fence by appealing to Canadian sovereignty, taking away the last hindrance for the US administration to showing enough willpower to stop the Russians (fears of a political setback during the next elections).

We care enough about it to send the Secretary of State. That's a huge deal. If this wasn't something of note, you would hear about talks with ambassadors. We sent our chief ambassador over.

Like you say in the further part of your post, I think the only reason do to this is to show you mean business in advance and to thereby be able to say you were always concerned with Russian expansionism when they really violate a proverbial border. She transfers words and these words won't stop the Russians in this situation. They feel their words were ignored when Western governments recognised Kosovo's independence and they'll be keen on returning the favour. But the response is adequate in that sense. I think that the Russians can be allowed to take a certain amount of control over Abkhazia and South-Ossetia in a moral sense, and that they can still be stopped when they push it further at a later point in time.

It's not about Abkhazia and South Ossetia.

Well, at every Russian step we should determine whether it's fair to let them get what they want or take more drastic steps. I don't think the Russians are really going too far in ther situation of Abkhazia and South-Ossetia so I think more far-reaching actions than deploying a high diplomat are not yet worth it. The future will tell us what Russia's next step will be but I think that when they really go overboard the US will have the determination to effectively call a halt to it. Let's say that the Russians start drilling in Canadian-claimed areas around the North Pole, then, if all else fails, the US could send gunships to block Russian oil tankers. A President would both have to be incredibly bad at Realpolitik to be unwilling to take actions that coerce the Russians into backing off and stubborn enough to not listen to advices of the Pentagon and former generals who probably do. I personally don't think that that will happen regardless of whether Obama or McCain gets elected, if it does it will be something to slap that president across the face with in the next elections and at the very least it'll give us an opportunity to argue what a weakling that President is on the BBS.

Who fucking called it?

At 7/11/08 03:23 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Just for your information, there gossips floating around here that certain provocative acts of aggression, that have occurred in the zones of conflicts, were perpetrated by the Georgian government itself in order to publicly vilify the Russian side and, particularly, the "Peacekeepers" it has entrenched there.

I find this highly likely. Russia has been vilified in this conflict. While the Russian hypocracy is obvious (it's not okay for Kosovo and Checniya to break off, but if South Ossetia wants to it's fine), that is no excuse. The Western/Georgian side is being hypocritical too, by taking the opposite stance. But Georgia is killing just as many civilians as Russia (more actually). It's stupid to try to paint one side as in the right and one as in the wrong. Both have violated international treaties and killed civilians. While I sympathise with Russia more, I don't endorse all their actions, just like it's stupid to portray Russia as a evil empire and Georgia as the victim.

At 8/12/08 08:52 PM, Saruman200 wrote:

At 7/11/08 03:23 AM, BuddhaGeo wrote: Just for your information, there gossips floating around here that certain provocative acts of aggression, that have occurred in the zones of conflicts, were perpetrated by the Georgian government itself in order to publicly vilify the Russian side and, particularly, the "Peacekeepers" it has entrenched there.

I find this highly likely. Russia has been vilified in this conflict. While the Russian hypocracy is obvious (it's not okay for Kosovo and Checniya to break off, but if South Ossetia wants to it's fine), that is no excuse. The Western/Georgian side is being hypocritical too, by taking the opposite stance. But Georgia is killing just as many civilians as Russia (more actually). It's stupid to try to paint one side as in the right and one as in the wrong. Both have violated international treaties and killed civilians. While I sympathise with Russia more, I don't endorse all their actions, just like it's stupid to portray Russia as a evil empire and Georgia as the victim.

It is obliged by the Russian federation constitution to protect every Russian Citizen where ever they maybe and by extension the use of military force. However Georgia has every right to reclaim the seperatist province. If anything Georgia should make it an aontomous region, so all sides would be atleast happy in some sense, maybe this has already been done I don't know. Russia feared that that kosovo if granted independence would inspire other separatist movements all over the balkans. And it seems Georgia is fearing the same thing. Even if Russia does allow both north and south Ossetia to unit, Russia wouldn't allow Osseita to become a full fledged nation not in its own borders and would keep them under the thumb.

The point of me bumping this is to show that I totally called Russia's military expansionism.

It's an ego trip, fuck off.

At 8/12/08 11:27 PM, Gunter45 wrote: The point of me bumping this is to show that I totally called Russia's military expansionism.

It's an ego trip, fuck off.

I'm worried about Bud D: