reply to post by airteck
Well, I'm glad you think it's nice. While we're on the topic of "smartening up," do realize that you have just said that what's nice about it is
that the world gets to go back to living in fear of annihilation. Nice, because everyone will just be scared of dying, but supposedly not actually
dying. Nevermind that the Cold War came within minutes of going hot several times, only a "smartened up" person would take that into consideration
when deciding whether or not a new Cold War is "nice."
reply to post by mythatsabigprobe
Originally posted by mythatsabigprobe
When you say "trying to find a diplomatic resolution" I assume you mean issuing new threats of punishment and sanctions every day, while encouraging
the Baltic States to turn against Russia and host US missiles in their territory.
Punishments and sanctions the West suggested: Kicking them out of the G8, halting diplomatic ties with NATO, issuing condemnations, having diplomats
demand that they cease fighting, considering sanctions. You know, basically considering everything in the book besides "Threaten to nuke them,"
which WAS the response they got back from Russia.
Turning the Baltic States against Russia? I'd say Russia turned the Baltic States against Russia. If they weren't "against" (in reality, afraid
of) Russia to begin with, they would probably not have agreed to host any weapons now would they? Besides, Allies share weapons. That's the purpose
of Allies. If allies aren't going to share weapons, then what's the point in having them to begin with?
reply to post by 2stepsfromtop
Then why on earth did the the USA push Georgia into attacking Osstetia?
According to Putin, they did. In reality, they urged Georgia not to attack, and even went as far as flat out telling Georgia they would not recieve
U.S. backing. When two demons give to different stories and you choose to believe one, you are still believing a demon. However, in most democratic
countries one is innocent until proven guilty, so I ask for your evidence that the U.S. told Georgia to start a war.
Why did the USA have Special Forces and other "advisers" on the ground in Georgia?
Because Georgia is a U.S. ally (because of their assistance in Iraq, not because of their location.) They have a relatively new government, and they
clearly have a new army with little training, experience, and equipment. It's generally the stated purpose of the Special Forces to train and equip
U.S. allies. They were in Georgia during the conflict, because they were there before the conflict, taking on exactly that task.
And why on earth does the USA believe that they have a right to the oil that is shipped via Georgia from Iran to Russia and other countries in
the region?
The U.S. did not make any claim to that oil, although Europe made quite a stink about it. In reality, Russia has effectively attempted to make a claim
to that oil by attempting to shut it off with a bombing campaign - Basically saying, screw you Europe, I'm taking your oil and burning it.
reply to post by johnsky
Once again, allies share weapons. Unless you have some evidence that these materials were supplied with a note that said, "Here, these are so you can
start fighting again right away," then you don't have any reason to be questioning these transactions. The reality is, I doubt you have any evidence
that these things were provided after the cease fire at all - at least, none that you didn't get from Russia.
reply to post by pexx421
This will be fun. :-)
thats funny matt, i thought western powers INSTIGATED this conflict.
So where you there when we did this instigating, or did you just
take the word of Putin, the former KGB agent, as truth?
And of course, russia is supposed to just stand by while the west tries to install a missile defense system that would "supposedly" make
russias nuclear arsenal obselete?
Ten interceptors do not make 2,000 missiles obsolete, nor do they give the U.S. any "first strike" ability
by somehow negating Russia's state of the art detection systems which would allow them to fire off all 2,000 of those missiles as soon as the U.S.
fired off all 1,500 or so of theirs. Numbers are approximated to the best of my memories. :-)
at the same time that the west is now attempting to advocate nuclear first strike as an option in future engagements??
Nuclear first
strike has been allowable according to Russia's doctrine since
1993. I'm sure you have some stupid reason why it's okay for
Russia to have a first strike doctrine, though. If you care to share that reasoning, I'd be happy to ignore it like the flag-waving jerk this
Anti-American web site is turning me into. :-)
The way i saw it,
Oh, so you were there, and you saw it? So you actually are "in the know" about which of the 200 conflicting stories
we've heard are truth and which ones are made up? Well that changes things, I was unaware that you "saw it."
russia advanced to the defence of ossetia
And it almost took a full day for their full response to arrive on the scene, suggesting of
course that they couldn't possibly have been sitting right on the border waiting for an excuse to attack...
retaliated by destroying MILITARY targets
Such as pipelines that take oil through Georgia and on into other countries in Europe? Or
train bridges? Or capturing sea ports that vital imports and other shipments come in by?
(as opposed to georgias attacking almost all civilians...with western supplied weapons)
Weapons like the BM-21 Grad Multiple Rocket
Launcher, designed by the Soviet Union? My, how western those weapons are! In reality, had Georgia been using Western supplied weapons, they would
have had more accurate missiles and been more capable of hitting the rebel factions that had been mortering them for several years, and they could
have done so with fewer civilian casualties.
and then pulling back and holding positions.
Russia is the one that "pulled out," but somehow still holds all of the positions it had
taken previous to "pulling out."
If russia was really "annihilating its neighbor" as you say, the whole of Georgia would have been destroyed in half of the first day.
At this point in time, Georgia is utterly defenseless against absolutely anything. Their capitol city is pretty much the only area that has any of
Georgia's own military left. I would call that annihilated. If you wouldn't, then your opinion can hardly be taken seriously.
Stop pushing your propaganda and fearmongering upon a population who can read the truth for themselves, and stop changing the facts
around...thats called lieing
Stop selecting one side of the story and assuming it's the truth, like so many of the other sheep here at ATS.
Then stop listening to the news out of Russia and assuming it is "fact." And then stop accusing me of lying and trumpeting up your opinion as the
"truth" when your opinion is backed by no more evidence than mine is - that's called being sanctimonious. :-)
I enjoyed responding to that last post most of all. It required the least amount of thinking. :-)
Does anyone else have any light-revealing and insightful new bits of rhetoric they'd like to pull out of Russia's mouth and try to jam into my ear?
). 
