Howdy, Stranger!
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Quick Links
World War III
This discussion has been closed.
It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
Comments
I am with Russia on this. They were attacked. They responded. Sorry wars are not won worrying about civilian cassualties. They are won by inflicting heavy civilian cassualties so your neighbors learn to play nice. Also picking a fight with the second largest military (or close to it) you may want to make sure you have the equipment and support to do so.
I hope tonight's rerun of Big Bang Theory is a good one.
----------------------------------------------
"Some days you just can't get rid of a bomb." -- Batman
The only problem with this is if it was WW3 then there can't be any winners here because 2 big powers fighting would end in a ball of fire 3000+ degrees hitting all the world. Think about it, why would Russia go against the US and US against Russia for something so small and stupid as this conflict.
I think the smart thing to do is to sit with each power and discuss a way to end this peacefully and as mature as possible. I doubt China would even want to see this conflict rise with incorporating the US into it because that would force China to defend Russia and they do not want to do that. China makes to much money off of the US.
Who let you in the VIP section?
where do you get your news from?
Having been talking about this with my sister who's writing a paper over the summer for her uni course, centering around international conflict law, earlier today, I think you've TOTALLY misunderstood the situation.
My understanding, from the conversation earlier (I couldn't even pronounce Ossetia this morning!) is that in the 90's, South Ossetia declared it's independence from Georgia. The UN has not accepted their independence and the region remains a 'de facto' independent state, whilst internationally recognised as part of Georgia
On the 7th Georgian troops moved back in to South Ossetia to reassert their governance of the state, as is their right by international law. I've no idea where you have these stories of burning civilians etc., as by all accounts the operation went perfectly to plan in a textbook manner, and even since, the Russians themselves are stating only 100 civilians dead, whilst the Georgians are stating 2,000. Those statistics should surely read the other way around if the Georgians were at fault?
On the 8th the Russians counterattacked, ILLEGALLY. Not only did they push Georgia out of THEIR OWN TERRITORY of South Ossetia, but they pushed further into Georgia, ILLEGALLY once again (you know, a bit like Bush declaring an ILLEGAL war on Iraq).
On the 9th the Georgian government declared a state of war as not only were the Russians occupying their territory of South Ossetia, but also Abkhazia and parts of the surrounding territories of both regions, and refusing to leave or accept a ceasefire. At that point they requested international aid, which the UN and it's member states is oblidged to provide as Russia is ENTIRELY in the wrong here.
Also your example of Buffalo is totally off the mark. A better example would be if, say, the southern parts of Texas/California, based on an overwhelming number of hispanic immigrants, and monetary/military incentives from Mexico, declared their independence from the USA, forming the 'republic' of 'Ocixem' let's say. The US at this point would think nothing of rolling the tanks in and quelling this rebellion. The role of the Russians then is filled by Mexico, who would roll their own tanks over, (somehow) pushing back the american army ALL the way out of Ocixem, as well as the remaining parts of California and Texas. Who's in the right there? Bloody certainly not Mexico.
EDIT: Kurush pretty much beat me to it
where do you get your news from?
www.youtube.com/watch
"Greetings, earth dog!" "Aroo?!"
You kinda of still prove my point. Russia supplies seperatist and We supply georgians. We both use plausable deniablity. So if Georgia attacks the seperatists and kills russians in the process thats a act of war against russia. Especially when the tensions were already high. Slaughter the civilians make the world think russia did it and get our assess kicked so the world will maybe back us and start the 3 war to end all wars yet again. When you kill your own people other countries dont get invovled but when you bring there citizens into the mix they have the right to defend there people.
Having been talking about this with my sister who's writing a paper over the summer for her uni course, centering around international conflict law, earlier today, I think you've TOTALLY misunderstood the situation.
My understanding, from the conversation earlier (I couldn't even pronounce Ossetia this morning!) is that in the 90's, South Ossetia declared it's independence from Georgia. The UN has not accepted their independence and the region remains a 'de facto' independent state, whilst internationally recognised as part of Georgia
On the 7th Georgian troops moved back in to South Ossetia to reassert their governance of the state, as is their right by international law. I've no idea where you have these stories of burning civilians etc., as by all accounts the operation went perfectly to plan in a textbook manner, and even since, the Russians themselves are stating only 100 civilians dead, whilst the Georgians are stating 2,000. Those statistics should surely read the other way around if the Georgians were at fault?
Let me add one bit to what happened above here. Russian-armed, financed, and directed separatists blew up the leader of the South Ossetian administration, since he was loyal to Georgia. That's why they went in.
On the 8th the Russians counterattacked, ILLEGALLY. Not only did they push Georgia out of THEIR OWN TERRITORY of South Ossetia, but they pushed further into Georgia, ILLEGALLY once again (you know, a bit like Bush declaring an ILLEGAL war on Iraq).
On the 9th the Georgian government declared a state of war as not only were the Russians occupying their territory of South Ossetia, but also Abkhazia and parts of the surrounding territories of both regions, and refusing to leave or accept a ceasefire. At that point they requested international aid, which the UN and it's member states is oblidged to provide as Russia is ENTIRELY in the wrong here.
In regards to this place, there have been constant terrorist attacks here for several months. Again, Russian-backed groups.
Also your example of Buffalo is totally off the mark. A better example would be if, say, the southern parts of Texas/California, based on an overwhelming number of hispanic immigrants, and monetary/military incentives from Mexico, declared their independence from the USA, forming the 'republic' of 'Ocixem' let's say. The US at this point would think nothing of rolling the tanks in and quelling this rebellion. The role of the Russians then is filled by Mexico, who would roll their own tanks over, (somehow) pushing back the american army ALL the way out of Ocixem, as well as the remaining parts of California and Texas. Who's in the right there? Bloody certainly not Mexico.
Once again, Russians reporting 100 civilian casualties, Georgians reporting 2,000.
Also please note no Russians were/should have been killed in this operation. South Ossetia is not, and hasn't ever been part of the Russian state, and regardless of what civilians killed in any attack on the province may call themselves, they're Ossetian, NOT Russian. If I started calling myself German, because I liked Germany, and France attacked Britain and killed me, does that mean they've killed a German? Don't be stupid. Act of war indeed.
Why would they be so stupid?? They're not trying to start WW3, they're trying to reclaim one of their own rogue provinces.
for the people saying russia is bad. You say russia has armed the sepertist. Well we armed the georgians. We are just as bad just russia aint having that shit and taking the matter into there own hands because its in there back yard. US on the other hand never gets involved because its always over seas and people think that its ok we arm but the other guys cant. give me a break you people are hipocrits and you know it.
You kinda of still prove my point. Russia supplies seperatist and We supply georgians. We both use plausable deniablity. So if Georgia attacks the seperatists and kills russians in the process thats a act of war against russia. Especially when the tensions were already high. Slaughter the civilians make the world think russia did it and get our assess kicked so the world will maybe back us and start the 3 war to end all wars yet again. When you kill your own people other countries dont get invovled but when you bring there citizens into the mix they have the right to defend there people.
Actually, it's not an act of war against Russia. It's not even close. When you live in a country, you fall under the laws of that country. If you get caught in the crossfire of a military action, too bad. Live in your own country if you want an expectation of military protection. There is no legal basis for what the Russians did here. The best they could come up with was that they were fulfilling their peacekeeping duties per a 1992 treaty. That's some bullshit.
Ultimately, Georgia invaded the city after Russian-armed separatists killed their own fucking president. That's not illegal, considering the city was in their territory.
Anyway, lets forget the legality and look at the politics. First off, Georgia is not an American proxy. Close, but not quite. You can bet that Georgia didn't want this war. They decided that enough was enough and gave the go-ahead for a military operation. They never believed Russia would jump in. Guess why they made this gamble? They were promised support from the US and weapons from Israel. Neither came. Make what you will of that.
Atrocities? Most of the talk of Georgian atrocities has either been from the Russian state media or shitty American news agencies who just regurgitate Russian propaganda because they have nobody on the ground. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it's highly suspect. The Georgians have been talking about Russian atrocities too, and their information is no more or less reliable. I find it pretty easy to believe that both sides committed atrocities. Historically, the military culture in that region is not exactly one of restraint.
It doesn't matter because any way you cut this, Russia started it because they were the ones who orchestrated the assassination. They wanted this war because they wanted to prove a point internationally and regionally. The international point was that they aren't weak and wouldn't stand for their voice being overriden (think Kosovo). The regional point was for all of Russia's neighboring states to take note that they're the only real power in the region, not America or the rest of the west.
Lets get this straight in 1 day i repeat 1 day Georgia massacred 2000 people from a nation of only 70k!
So in under a few weeks if left unchecked they would have completed a true genocide of south ossetia.
And some people see nothing wrong with this?
Because Georgia is singing USA is great and provides troops to go into another man's land for USA ,it gives them the right to commit genocide?
Sorry but if I was Russia I would keep quiet and wipe the Georgian army from the face of the earth then talk to the UN saying "ok its done its done.lets move on"
After all USA was told not to enter Iraq and they did .Now what gives USA the right to ask UN to make Russia stop in Georgia.
Irionic that now Georgia needs its 2000 troops that were invading someone's else land(Iraq) to defend hopelessly in their own country.
Putin is too soft.He should get the black sea fleet to shell and launch cruise missles into every Georgian town as a lesson that genocide is not accepted even if USA is your best friend.
Georgia is killing Russian Citizens right across the border and you want them to be quiet?How would you feel if mexico killed 2000 US citizens few km from Texas?
And Mccain needs to shut his wrinkled trap .What is he gonna do make war with Russia who has more nukes then the USA? Please.Even if he is that senile i bet the US generals will give him a fake red button to press anyhow lol.
GORI CONQUEREDGoldy, are you ever going to give this up? Both Kurush and this other guy with the first post on this page have pretty much proven you wrong with factual evidence, you've done nothing in your last couple of posts but try to spin it to still make you "not wrong" but clearly they have outclassed you with their knowledge of the situation
Your argument is like a two legged dog with an eating disorder...weak and unbalanced.
You kinda of still prove my point. Russia supplies seperatist and We supply georgians. We both use plausable deniablity. So if Georgia attacks the seperatists and kills russians in the process thats a act of war against russia. Especially when the tensions were already high. Slaughter the civilians make the world think russia did it and get our assess kicked so the world will maybe back us and start the 3 war to end all wars yet again. When you kill your own people other countries dont get invovled but when you bring there citizens into the mix they have the right to defend there people.
Actually, it's not an act of war against Russia. It's not even close. When you live in a country, you fall under the laws of that country. If you get caught in the crossfire of a military action, too bad. Live in your own country if you want an expectation of military protection. There is no legal basis for what the Russians did here. The best they could come up with was that they were fulfilling their peacekeeping duties per a 1992 treaty. That's some bullshit.
Ultimately, Georgia invaded the city after Russian-armed separatists killed their own fucking president. That's not illegal, considering the city was in their territory.
Anyway, lets forget the legality and look at the politics. First off, Georgia is not an American proxy. Close, but not quite. You can bet that Georgia didn't want this war. They decided that enough was enough and gave the go-ahead for a military operation. They never believed Russia would jump in. Guess why they made this gamble? They were promised support from the US and weapons from Israel. Neither came. Make what you will of that.
Atrocities? Most of the talk of Georgian atrocities has either been from the Russian state media or shitty American news agencies who just regurgitate Russian propaganda because they have nobody on the ground. That doesn't necessarily mean they're wrong, but it's highly suspect. The Georgians have been talking about Russian atrocities too, and their information is no more or less reliable. I find it pretty easy to believe that both sides committed atrocities. Historically, the military culture in that region is not exactly one of restraint.
It doesn't matter because any way you cut this, Russia started it because they were the ones who orchestrated the assassination. They wanted this war because they wanted to prove a point internationally and regionally. The international point was that they aren't weak and wouldn't stand for their voice being overriden (think Kosovo). The regional point was for all of Russia's neighboring states to take note that they're the only real power in the region, not America or the rest of the west.
If I recall UN/USA invaded and bombed yugoslavia over ethnic cleansing in Bosnia which as of that time was part of Yugoslavia!
So unless you accept that was legal how can you say this is legal ?
And yugoslavia never killed 3% of a whole nation in 24 hrs which is what Georgia did.If Russia waited even 1 more week there be no South Ossetian left to help they will all be ethnically cleansed thru genocide.
And yes you just need to see the footage of the south Ossetian capital to see that the city was left in rumbles.
I'm not really sure about 2,000 deaths. That's what the Russian media is saying, a direct repetition of government-supplied numbers, but I'll go with that for the moment. I still say the Georgians were probably not aiming for genocide. First off, the death toll in Tskhinvali would have been a lot higher if that were the case. Second, it makes no sense for them to bend over backwards to avoid war with Russia for the last ten years, then do this. Either Saakashvili simply went insane, or he didn't expect this outcome. I'm betting on the latter. He probably thought his army would act professionally, and America would back him up if things went south.
2,000 people seems highly suspect because far worse battles have produced far lower civilian casualties. Fallujah is fifteen times the size of Tskhinvali, and the battle lasted ten times as long, yet there were 1,200 civilian fatalities. That either means the Georgian troops simply went on a rampage like you said, or the numbers have been vastly overstated. I can see either scenario being true. The Georgian Army is nothing great, and it entered the city with no real plan. The Russian government, on the other hand, has no problem lying and manipulating the truth.
Believing either side without proof is pointless at this point.
As far as war, there will never be total war between the US and Russia, regardless. Do you think numbers matter as far as nukes go? The Russians have 20% more warheads, but we have more launch capability. The bottom line is that either side could annihilate the other if the button was pushed. The fallout from that exchange would likely do far worse to the rest of the world.
Wrong. There are members of the press and eyewitnesses that state no Russina planes were overhead, and no air attack followed. This was one of those special public relations moments for the press. I call them propaganda moments.
Look, ethnic Russians live in Georgia. They have no desire to be part of Georgia, they want to be part of Russia. Who drew the "magic" boundary line and gave their homes to Georgia after the Soviet Union went kaput? They had no say in the boundary, why does somebody else's say trump thiers?
To give you my analogy, it's like a hispanic majority of Texas decides to succeed from the United States and become their own state, and you are a non-hispanic. The world recognizes the new hispanic state of Texas, and you say, "WTF, I don't want to belong to the hispanic state of Texas, I want to belong to America". The world says "tough shit", we drew the boundary line, if you don't like it you can just pack up your families and move out of your house. Sorry, life's not fair".
Why do we insist on drawing arbitrary borders and including diverse groups within them and telling them they should learn to get along?
Having been talking about this with my sister who's writing a paper over the summer for her uni course, centering around international conflict law, earlier today, I think you've TOTALLY misunderstood the situation.
My understanding, from the conversation earlier (I couldn't even pronounce Ossetia this morning!) is that in the 90's, South Ossetia declared it's independence from Georgia. The UN has not accepted their independence and the region remains a 'de facto' independent state, whilst internationally recognised as part of Georgia
On the 7th Georgian troops moved back in to South Ossetia to reassert their governance of the state, as is their right by international law. I've no idea where you have these stories of burning civilians etc., as by all accounts the operation went perfectly to plan in a textbook manner, and even since, the Russians themselves are stating only 100 civilians dead, whilst the Georgians are stating 2,000. Those statistics should surely read the other way around if the Georgians were at fault?
On the 8th the Russians counterattacked, ILLEGALLY. Not only did they push Georgia out of THEIR OWN TERRITORY of South Ossetia, but they pushed further into Georgia, ILLEGALLY once again (you know, a bit like Bush declaring an ILLEGAL war on Iraq).
On the 9th the Georgian government declared a state of war as not only were the Russians occupying their territory of South Ossetia, but also Abkhazia and parts of the surrounding territories of both regions, and refusing to leave or accept a ceasefire. At that point they requested international aid, which the UN and it's member states is oblidged to provide as Russia is ENTIRELY in the wrong here.
Also your example of Buffalo is totally off the mark. A better example would be if, say, the southern parts of Texas/California, based on an overwhelming number of hispanic immigrants, and monetary/military incentives from Mexico, declared their independence from the USA, forming the 'republic' of 'Ocixem' let's say. The US at this point would think nothing of rolling the tanks in and quelling this rebellion. The role of the Russians then is filled by Mexico, who would roll their own tanks over, (somehow) pushing back the american army ALL the way out of Ocixem, as well as the remaining parts of California and Texas. Who's in the right there? Bloody certainly not Mexico.
EDIT: Kurush pretty much beat me to it
Well then your argument aswell only furthers that our involvement should be non existant. We did the same thing to Iraq so why cant the russians do this to Georgia. We both had political goals influenced by our reasons for attack. Yet on this one im sure your buddies here will say Iraq was nessacary and this wasn't
Wrong. There are members of the press and eyewitnesses that state no Russina planes were overhead, and no air attack followed. This was one of those special public relations moments for the press. I call them propaganda moments.
Look, ethnic Russians live in Georgia. They have no desire to be part of Georgia, they want to be part of Russia. Who drew the "magic" boundary line and gave their homes to Georgia after the Soviet Union went kaput? They had no say in the boundary, why does somebody else's say trump thiers?
To give you my analogy, it's like a hispanic majority of Texas decides to succeed from the United States and become their own state, and you are a non-hispanic. The world recognizes the new hispanic state of Texas, and you say, "WTF, I don't want to belong to the hispanic state of Texas, I want to belong to America". The world says "tough shit", we drew the boundary line, if you don't like it you can just pack up your families and move out of your house. Sorry, life's not fair".
Why do we insist on drawing arbitrary borders and including diverse groups within them and telling them they should learn to get along?
Good point.
Well, I won't dispute that. If there is higher moral ground, the US is not on it.
Lets assume the 2k/70k is correct, which I have my doubts about until it gets some third-party confirmation.
That's about 2-3% of the country's total population which has died.
Which, according to the best estimates, is how much of Iraq's civilian population has died that wouldn't have if we hadn't invaded (650k is the most recent number).
Tough.If Kosovo was allowed to have independence from Serbia despite kosovo been the birthplace of serb ,I see no issue with South Ossetia joining Russia .
At least Ossetia is actually the birthplace of Ossetians unlike Kosovo which is the bithplace of Serbians but immigrants moved in and became majority.
Also the world needs to realize that they have been fighting eachother since the 90's. Thats there war and i think Russia is tired of it.
DEBKAfile’s military sources note that the arrival of the three new American flotillas will raise to five the number of US strike forces in Middle East waters – an unprecedented build-up since the crisis erupted over Iran’s nuclear program.
This vast naval and air strength consists of more than 40 carriers, warships and submarines, some of the last nuclear-armed, opposite the Islamic Republic, a concentration last seen just before the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003.
Our military sources postulate five objects of this show of American muscle:
1. The US, aided also by France, Britain and Canada, is finalizing preparations for a partial naval blockade to deny Iran imports of benzene and other refined oil products. This action would indicate that the Bush administration had thrown in the towel on stiff United Nations sanctions and decided to take matters in its own hands.
2. Iran, which imports 40 percent of its refined fuel products from Gulf neighbors, will retaliate for the embargo by shutting the Strait of Hormuz oil route chokepoint, in which case the US naval and air force stand ready to reopen the Strait and fight back any Iranian attempt to break through the blockade.
3. Washington is deploying forces as back-up for a possible Israeli military attack on Iran’s nuclear installations.
4. A potential rush of events in which a US-led blockade, Israeli attack and Iranian reprisals pile up in a very short time and precipitate a major military crisis.
5. While a massive deployment of this nature calls for long planning, its occurrence at this time cannot be divorced from the flare-up of the Caucasian war between Russia and Georgia. While Russia has strengthened its stake in Caspian oil resources by its overwhelming military intervention against Georgia, the Americans are investing might in defending the primary Persian Gulf oil sources of the West and the Far East.
DEBKAfile’s military sources name the three US strike forces en route to the Gulf as the USS Theodore Roosevelt , the USS Ronald Reagan and the USS Iwo Jima . Already in place are the USS Abraham Lincoln in the Arabian Sea opposite Iranian shores and the USS Peleliu which is cruising in the Red Sea and Gulf of Aden.
Yep its coming, i have accepted that fact since 1969.
http://www.debka.com/headline.php?hid=5499
Georgia 'overrun' by Russian troops as full-scale ground invasion begins
An unidentified Georgian woman cries after finding out that her child was killed in a neighbouring village, in the town of Gori
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1043236/Georgia-overrun-Russian-troops-scale-ground-invasion-begins.html