Russian attacks over Georgia

Started by arkiv, August 09, 2008, 08:04:54 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

scarpia

A sane person would understand that Russia would act in its own self interest.  First we tell them that they have no right to feel threatened if their neighbors and former Soviet republics join NATO.  Then we goad one of these former republics to attack Russian troops, with US supplied weapons, no less.  It that supposed to encourage Russia to join the community of Western nations?

DFO

Certainly not. And besides, why should Russia've
interest on join the Western community? They
are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic. And they never trusted nor
admired the Westerns. They stooped years ago
to interfere in the internal affairs of West countries,
but USA want to install missiles that can easily
get Russia. They've every reason to be pissed of.

scarpia

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 04:28:22 PM
Certainly not. And besides, why should Russia've
interest on join the Western community? They
are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic. And they never trusted nor
admired the Westerns. They stooped years ago
to interfere in the internal affairs of West countries,
but USA want to install missiles that can easily
get Russia. They've every reason to be pissed of.

I would think they aspire to a western standard of living, western values of freedom and human rights, and to put their economy in order in the long term they need western investment and technical knowledge.   The strategies that they have recently used, for instance contracting with British Petroleum to develop their oil fields, then denying BP employees visas so they can confiscate BP assets, will not help them in the long term.   I'm not sure that tradition Russian values of tyranny, poverty and oppression are to be preferred.   Russia may have achieved an overt victory in Georgia, but the penalty is not the NATO posturing, it is the precipitous withdrawal of foreign investment from Russia that has happened in the past few weeks.  That will hurt Russia in the long run.

By the way, the placement of those missiles may be an unnecessary irritation, but they can't "get Russia."  They are anti-ballistic missile defense systems, and can only be used to intercept offensive missiles, which are considered most likely to come from a rogue state in the middle east such as Iran.

DFO

Sure, they said that are only anti-ballistic missiles
and you do believe it?.
If you do, you can believe anything.

Sarastro

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 04:28:22 PM
They are only partially european. A great part of his
population is assiatic.

If thou mean that russians are asian then thou
mustlook at the data which says that
79,83 % (115 million) of russian federation
population is purely russian white and a
few more million are immigrants from europe and
a few are minorities from caucasus, like georgia
and the rest little bits are siberian native nationalities.
By the way the most of russia's population live
in the eropian part. That is statistics.

Sarastro

BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece

scarpia

Quote from: DFO on August 22, 2008, 05:40:58 PM
Sure, they said that are only anti-ballistic missiles
and you do believe it?.
If you do, you can believe anything.

Yes I believe it, because it makes technical sense.  There only reason that missiles need to placed in a specific location is to intercept an enemy missile, which is most vulnerable during boost phase.   The US already has countless intercontinental ballistic missiles, the strategic air command, cruise missiles, and ballistic missile submarines.  There is no need to put a dinky missile launcher in Poland to target Russia.


ezodisy

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there

He grew up in North Ossetia but was born elsewhere.

Beware of the French!

Sarastro

Quote from: ezodisy on August 22, 2008, 11:30:25 PM
He grew up in North Ossetia but was born elsewhere.

Who cares? It's already pretty old and stinking stuff, like the war in Iraq, now people are more concerned with Obama's vice, America's most popular cars of 2008, and new scandals in the Olympics. :P

zamyrabyrd

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece


I hope it's OK to quote one of the comments:
"It appears that every aspect of Russia's Georgian 'adventure' was orchestrated."
d. Los Angeles


ZB



"Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, one by one."

― Charles MacKay, Extraordinary Popular Delusions and the Madness of Crowds

Florestan

Quote from: Sarastro on August 22, 2008, 07:04:30 PM
BTW, Valery Gergiev flew to South Ossetia, his birthplace, and gave a concert there
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4579829.ece

Now, there is one more article in The Times, about "music and politics" :-\ "Should Gergiev be condemned for playing in South Ossetia?"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/article4583096.ece


Why didn't he conducted some South Ossetian music? If there is no such thing as South Ossetian classical music, he could have chosen to play South Ossetian folklore of which I am sure there is plenty. Instead, he played Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky, making it an entirely Russian (and emphatically so) affair and showing one more time that it's all about Russia and that South Ossetia is just a pawn in the game.
"Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part." - Claude Debussy

Florestan

Quote from: Spitvalve on August 21, 2008, 12:31:44 AM
I'll wait and see. I still think annexing those territories could have potentially dire consequences for Russia as a unified state.

And yet the first step has been taken.
"Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part." - Claude Debussy

Florestan

It's official: Medvedev has signed the decrees recognizing the independence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Annexation proper is just a matter of time.
"Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part." - Claude Debussy

ezodisy

Our aim is to suffocate aggression
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

LOL!

Florestan

Quote from: ezodisy on August 27, 2008, 02:45:11 AM
Our aim is to suffocate aggression
Russian President Dmitry Medvedev

:D :D :D
"Beauty must appeal to the senses, must provide us with immediate enjoyment, must impress us or insinuate itself into us without any effort on our part." - Claude Debussy

DFO

As a reply, USA could annex Alaska,Canada and Mexico

DavidRoss

Quote from: DFO on August 27, 2008, 03:23:50 AM
As a reply, USA could annex Alaska,Canada and Mexico
Well, the USA bought Alaska long ago and it's been a state now for 50 years.  As for the rest, Mexico's in the process of annexing the Southwest, and Canada is at peace with Quebec.
"Maybe the problem most of you have ... is that you're not listening to Barbirolli." ~Sarge

"The problem with socialism is that sooner or later you run out of other people's money." ~Margaret Thatcher

Hector



Beware of the French!
[/quote]

I have been following this with interest as the same could happen here.

If it does happen can we then talk of the "Belgianisation" of Europe instead of the "Balkanisation"?

I would expect Wallonie to try and become part of France as it is unlikely to be able to survive on its own and it is the bone of contention with the Flemish in that it is they who believe that they are forever subsidising the French-speakers.

Ten thumbs

Curses! Independence for Tibet is illegal and out of the question. Mr Bush says it must remain forever an integral part of China.
A day may be a destiny; for life
Lives in but little—but that little teems
With some one chance, the balance of all time:
A look—a word—and we are wholly changed.

Sarastro

Quote from: Florestan on August 24, 2008, 10:58:14 PM
Why didn't he conducted some South Ossetian music? If there is no such thing as South Ossetian classical music, he could have chosen to play South Ossetian folklore of which I am sure there is plenty. Instead, he played Shostakovich and Tchaikovsky, making it an entirely Russian (and emphatically so) affair and showing one more time that it's all about Russia and that South Ossetia is just a pawn in the game.

I am sure you understand that it is a very loose argument. Why do you think the orchestra knows some South Ossetian music? Why do you think they had time to learn and rehearse it? It was a hastily organized concert, they simply had no time after a long flight. There might many other human reasons why they played what they played, perhaps it was well-rehearsed beforehand and played many times, and the music matched the circumstances. What if South Ossetian music is merry and cheerful? Would it be OK to play it for the mournful event?

I see you've been posting only in this topic for the whole past week, so it seems that Russia bothers you.

Quote from: Florestan on August 19, 2008, 12:25:41 AM
My country would have been a far better place than it is now had it not been for the USSR and its puppet regime in Bucharest.

Amplifying your logic, one can also say that had it not been for the Roman Empire, Romania would have been a far better place that it is now. Who knows, maybe your ancestors were slaves during those times? Or had it not been for the First Bulgarian Empire, or had it not been for the Tatars, or had it not been for the Ottoman Empire, or had it not been for the Habsburgs' Austrian empire. And, by the way, in the 19-th century Romania was recognized as an independent state after the Russian-Turkish war and was granted freedom from the Ottoman Empire after its defeat in the war by the Russian Empire.

And, for instance, Russia was under the Tatar yoke for a couple of centuries and suffered from tribute and cruelty. Now the term "Tatar" is eliminated as it is offensive to the Mongols, so now it is just called "a foreign invasion." Had it not been for the Golden Horde, Russia would have been a faaaaaar better place than it is now. Stop complaining about and blaming Russia, it is disgraceful! Of course we will never forget vices of the Soviet government, but there is no puppet regime in Romania now, and its future is entirely in its own hands.

By the way, a true story, my friend's mother was run over by two speeding drunk Romanian guys, in Vienna, during her vacation. She's been in coma for three weeks, with haematoma in liver and concussion of the brain. Had it not been for those Romanians, she would have been in a far better condition. >:(