Just a quick little clarification...I didn't mean that Russia had never denied involvement in the murder of its expatriot. What I meant was that there wasn't a convincing effort. I mean, if a government was accused of murdering a citizen in another country, I would think you could come up with a better refutation of the charges than, "If we really wanted to kill him, you wouldn't have traced it back to us."
They just got pissed off because they did get it traced back to them.
Thread
Posts in chronological order
@ The Miracle:
That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly. Despite the fact that they did more damage to Israel than Iraqi SCUDs, the American army still loves the idea behind the Patriot Missiles.
That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly. Despite the fact that they did more damage to Israel than Iraqi SCUDs, the American army still loves the idea behind the Patriot Missiles.
@ The Miracle,
I agree about the term "former allies", that was a sloppy expression. About the weapon shield: If two people face each other with a revolver in their hands and aiming at each other: that would be a balance of threat. If one of them is dressed in a full body bullet protection, the balance is gone and therefore the Russians will feel threatened by the missile shield. It's not in the interest of Europe that such a situation is created. The conflict in Georgia probably would not have escalated the way it did if not for these missile shields and the NATO talks with Georgia. I am not taking the "Russian side" here, I am just looking at the situation as neutral as possible. There is no reason to start a new arms race.
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment.
I agree about the term "former allies", that was a sloppy expression. About the weapon shield: If two people face each other with a revolver in their hands and aiming at each other: that would be a balance of threat. If one of them is dressed in a full body bullet protection, the balance is gone and therefore the Russians will feel threatened by the missile shield. It's not in the interest of Europe that such a situation is created. The conflict in Georgia probably would not have escalated the way it did if not for these missile shields and the NATO talks with Georgia. I am not taking the "Russian side" here, I am just looking at the situation as neutral as possible. There is no reason to start a new arms race.
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]MasterHistoryGirl wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Just a quick little clarification...I didn't mean that Russia had never denied involvement in the murder of its expatriot. What I meant was that there wasn't a convincing effort. I mean, if a government was accused of murdering a citizen in another country, I would think you could come up with a better refutation of the charges than, "If we really wanted to kill him, you wouldn't have traced it back to us."
They just got pissed off because they did get it traced back to them. [/QUOTE]
Maggie, I think Putin did not think he HAD to make that effort. He does not give a toss about what foreign media think.
They just got pissed off because they did get it traced back to them. [/QUOTE]
Maggie, I think Putin did not think he HAD to make that effort. He does not give a toss about what foreign media think.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly. [/QUOTE]
Yes, Caspar. To shoot down missles, you need to shoot a missle. We're not in the Star Trek world yet, and you just don't push a button and the rocket disarms itself. YOU HAVE TO SHOOT IT DOWN.
Of course, we could ask Superman to divert the missles, but he can only do ONE at a time without interfering in Human history. And you know how pissed off Jor-El got about that!
Yes, Caspar. To shoot down missles, you need to shoot a missle. We're not in the Star Trek world yet, and you just don't push a button and the rocket disarms itself. YOU HAVE TO SHOOT IT DOWN.
Of course, we could ask Superman to divert the missles, but he can only do ONE at a time without interfering in Human history. And you know how pissed off Jor-El got about that!
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment. [/QUOTE]
True, but I'm not sure what would have happened if the NATO wouldn't have done anything.
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment. [/QUOTE]
True, but I'm not sure what would have happened if the NATO wouldn't have done anything.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment. [/QUOTE]
True, but I'm not sure what would have happened if the NATO wouldn't have done anything.
You wrote:
"And that's actually the reason why it's good not to let Russie just take that country... if we allow that, who's next?"
Who is "we"? And did Russia actually "take" Georgia? Last time I looked the country was still in the hands of their own goverment. [/QUOTE]
True, but I'm not sure what would have happened if the NATO wouldn't have done anything.
I don't understand - the NATO did not do anything in the recent conflict.
But some countries did... like the US and Germany.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]Micrówave wrote: [/QUOTENAME][QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly. [/QUOTE]
Yes, Caspar. To shoot down missles, you need to shoot a missle. We're not in the Star Trek world yet, and you just don't push a button and the rocket disarms itself. YOU HAVE TO SHOOT IT DOWN.
Of course, we could ask Superman to divert the missles, but he can only do ONE at a time without interfering in Human history. And you know how pissed off Jor-El got about that![/QUOTE]
We have working LASERS to shoot down missiles.
Granted, we're still improving on them, but they are in working order (current systems work by shutting down all electronics in the missile, later versions might actually explode the warhead), and do far less damage to the surroundings than Patriot Missiles do.
If you're going to be an obnoxious ass, please do so *after* comprehending the subject matter.
Oh, and if you'd bothered to read before screaming your head off, you'd have noticed that I was responding to a post by The Miracle. Read that, then go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.
Yes, Caspar. To shoot down missles, you need to shoot a missle. We're not in the Star Trek world yet, and you just don't push a button and the rocket disarms itself. YOU HAVE TO SHOOT IT DOWN.
Of course, we could ask Superman to divert the missles, but he can only do ONE at a time without interfering in Human history. And you know how pissed off Jor-El got about that![/QUOTE]
We have working LASERS to shoot down missiles.
Granted, we're still improving on them, but they are in working order (current systems work by shutting down all electronics in the missile, later versions might actually explode the warhead), and do far less damage to the surroundings than Patriot Missiles do.
If you're going to be an obnoxious ass, please do so *after* comprehending the subject matter.
Oh, and if you'd bothered to read before screaming your head off, you'd have noticed that I was responding to a post by The Miracle. Read that, then go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.
Why the hostility? None of us is a victim of this situation or responsible for it. We are all in the same boat, we all want peace and prosperity for our families, so why can't we discuss the issue in a civilized way? Does anyone here trust the Russian leadership, Georgian leadership, NATO? I don't. I try to make up my mind with the information I get and which I have to read through all the lies, half truths and ideology that come with the facts.
Today the NATO made a big fuss about Georgia being a sovereign state which is occupied by Russia - true but what about the right of the people in South Ossetia to decide for themselves? Why can Georgia be an independent state after the USSR dissolved and South Ossetia can't? There was not a single word about recognizing South Ossetia, so who is supposed to protect their rights?
The NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia has a legitimate democratic government but the OSCE observers of the Presidential election in Georgia reported fraud and irregularities in the Presidential elections. Up to 300 000 fake votes were counted - quite a lot in a population of only 3 millions people. I do not think that the country can be occupied only because the election was manipulated but Sakaaschwili is not a model democrat, please do not fool us, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer.
Why is the conflict not taken to the UN Security council? Europe is not the property of the NATO, a conflict should be solved by the international community and not a military alliance. The EU should try to help, I think that is right but they should not serve as an excuse for the NATO. The agreement written up by President Sarkozy and signed by both parties would *perhaps* be honoured if the USA would refrain from sending ships to Georgia and if Georgian soldiers would not be photographed holding German guns which were allegedly never delivered to Georgia because it's against German laws.
Today the NATO made a big fuss about Georgia being a sovereign state which is occupied by Russia - true but what about the right of the people in South Ossetia to decide for themselves? Why can Georgia be an independent state after the USSR dissolved and South Ossetia can't? There was not a single word about recognizing South Ossetia, so who is supposed to protect their rights?
The NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia has a legitimate democratic government but the OSCE observers of the Presidential election in Georgia reported fraud and irregularities in the Presidential elections. Up to 300 000 fake votes were counted - quite a lot in a population of only 3 millions people. I do not think that the country can be occupied only because the election was manipulated but Sakaaschwili is not a model democrat, please do not fool us, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer.
Why is the conflict not taken to the UN Security council? Europe is not the property of the NATO, a conflict should be solved by the international community and not a military alliance. The EU should try to help, I think that is right but they should not serve as an excuse for the NATO. The agreement written up by President Sarkozy and signed by both parties would *perhaps* be honoured if the USA would refrain from sending ships to Georgia and if Georgian soldiers would not be photographed holding German guns which were allegedly never delivered to Georgia because it's against German laws.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]YourValentine wrote: [/QUOTENAME]Why the hostility? None of us is a victim of this situation or responsible for it. We are all in the same boat, we all want peace and prosperity for our families, so why can't we discuss the issue in a civilized way? Does anyone here trust the Russian leadership, Georgian leadership, NATO? I don't. I try to make up my mind with the information I get and which I have to read through all the lies, half truths and ideology that come with the facts.
Today the NATO made a big fuss about Georgia being a sovereign state which is occupied by Russia - true but what about the right of the people in South Ossetia to decide for themselves? Why can Georgia be an independent state after the USSR dissolved and South Ossetia can't? There was not a single word about recognizing South Ossetia, so who is supposed to protect their rights?
The NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia has a legitimate democratic government but the OSCE observers of the Presidential election in Georgia reported fraud and irregularities in the Presidential elections. Up to 300 000 fake votes were counted - quite a lot in a population of only 3 millions people. I do not think that the country can be occupied only because the election was manipulated but Sakaaschwili is not a model democrat, please do not fool us, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer.
Why is the conflict not taken to the UN Security council? Europe is not the property of the NATO, a conflict should be solved by the international community and not a military alliance. The EU should try to help, I think that is right but they should not serve as an excuse for the NATO. The agreement written up by President Sarkozy and signed by both parties would *perhaps* be honoured if the USA would refrain from sending ships to Georgia and if Georgian soldiers would not be photographed holding German guns which were allegedly never delivered to Georgia because it's against German laws.[/QUOTE]
True.. it's all our fault that there are people dieing in Georgia. ;-)
Today the NATO made a big fuss about Georgia being a sovereign state which is occupied by Russia - true but what about the right of the people in South Ossetia to decide for themselves? Why can Georgia be an independent state after the USSR dissolved and South Ossetia can't? There was not a single word about recognizing South Ossetia, so who is supposed to protect their rights?
The NATO Secretary-General said that Georgia has a legitimate democratic government but the OSCE observers of the Presidential election in Georgia reported fraud and irregularities in the Presidential elections. Up to 300 000 fake votes were counted - quite a lot in a population of only 3 millions people. I do not think that the country can be occupied only because the election was manipulated but Sakaaschwili is not a model democrat, please do not fool us, Mr. de Hoop Scheffer.
Why is the conflict not taken to the UN Security council? Europe is not the property of the NATO, a conflict should be solved by the international community and not a military alliance. The EU should try to help, I think that is right but they should not serve as an excuse for the NATO. The agreement written up by President Sarkozy and signed by both parties would *perhaps* be honoured if the USA would refrain from sending ships to Georgia and if Georgian soldiers would not be photographed holding German guns which were allegedly never delivered to Georgia because it's against German laws.[/QUOTE]
True.. it's all our fault that there are people dieing in Georgia. ;-)
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]ThomasQuinn wrote: [/QUOTENAME]We have working LASERS to shoot down missiles.
Granted, we're still improving on them, but they are in working order (current systems work by shutting down all electronics in the missile, later versions might actually explode the warhead), and do far less damage to the surroundings than Patriot Missiles do.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you DO live in the Star Trek world. Or maybe Austin Powers. Did you make Quotation Marks in the air when you typed "LASERS"?
OK, smart guy. I'm glad you're not in charge of this country's defense, and your statement probably explains your own country's capabilities. You don't use something that's not tested and true. The Patriot missles work, period. If you're gonna bitch about the trees and lovely park that was destroyed by using them, fine. At least several hundred people weren't killed.
[QUOTE]If you're going to be an obnoxious ass, please do so *after* comprehending the subject matter. [/QUOTE]
That's never stopped you before.
[QUOTE]Oh, and if you'd bothered to read before screaming your head off, you'd have noticed that I was responding to a post by The Miracle. Read that, then go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.[/QUOTE]
You're the guy that sits in the corner after posting on the internet. I mean really, we know that you don't really have a job with any real kind of responsibilities, so you come on here with your mindless rants and attack everyone who disagrees with you. And it's the same ol' boring crap... you're like a re-run.
Try having a conversation. I know you can't do that in the real world without getting your ass handed to you on several occaisions. But why don't you try to back up your bullshit with fact. Maybe sometime. I know it's tough for you.
Have a better day. Maybe you and Jake should hookup.
Granted, we're still improving on them, but they are in working order (current systems work by shutting down all electronics in the missile, later versions might actually explode the warhead), and do far less damage to the surroundings than Patriot Missiles do.[/QUOTE]
Ok, so you DO live in the Star Trek world. Or maybe Austin Powers. Did you make Quotation Marks in the air when you typed "LASERS"?
OK, smart guy. I'm glad you're not in charge of this country's defense, and your statement probably explains your own country's capabilities. You don't use something that's not tested and true. The Patriot missles work, period. If you're gonna bitch about the trees and lovely park that was destroyed by using them, fine. At least several hundred people weren't killed.
[QUOTE]If you're going to be an obnoxious ass, please do so *after* comprehending the subject matter. [/QUOTE]
That's never stopped you before.
[QUOTE]Oh, and if you'd bothered to read before screaming your head off, you'd have noticed that I was responding to a post by The Miracle. Read that, then go sit in a corner and feel ashamed.[/QUOTE]
You're the guy that sits in the corner after posting on the internet. I mean really, we know that you don't really have a job with any real kind of responsibilities, so you come on here with your mindless rants and attack everyone who disagrees with you. And it's the same ol' boring crap... you're like a re-run.
Try having a conversation. I know you can't do that in the real world without getting your ass handed to you on several occaisions. But why don't you try to back up your bullshit with fact. Maybe sometime. I know it's tough for you.
Have a better day. Maybe you and Jake should hookup.
[QUOTE][QUOTENAME]The Mir@cle wrote: [/QUOTENAME]What the US wants to build is a weapon shield, they're not trying to install missiles in countries who are former Russian allies... As much as we can use the word "allies" here. Those countries were more invaded and ruled by the Russians than they were actually allies.
[/QUOTE]
This is a great point, Miracle. Of course, Caspar couldn't do anything with it. What you've said is true and that's why those countries look for Western support.
[/QUOTE]
This is a great point, Miracle. Of course, Caspar couldn't do anything with it. What you've said is true and that's why those countries look for Western support.
"True.. it's all our fault that there are people dieing in Georgia. ;-)"
I am sure it's not my fault :) and I have no idea what you are trying to say. If Russia retreats to the "pre-crisis" (why not call it "pre-war"?) positions which they hopefully do, the situation will be calm for now but the problem won't be solved at all. There will still be the two provinces who declared themselves independent, there is still a NATO applicant right on the Russian doorstep who is not willing to recognize this independence but wants to own them and there is still an ex-superpower who won't appreciate being told around by the NATO and the USA. Where does safety, common sense and diplomacy come into the picture? I do not see it. Instead, I see the cold war rethoric returning at alarming speed.
I am sure it's not my fault :) and I have no idea what you are trying to say. If Russia retreats to the "pre-crisis" (why not call it "pre-war"?) positions which they hopefully do, the situation will be calm for now but the problem won't be solved at all. There will still be the two provinces who declared themselves independent, there is still a NATO applicant right on the Russian doorstep who is not willing to recognize this independence but wants to own them and there is still an ex-superpower who won't appreciate being told around by the NATO and the USA. Where does safety, common sense and diplomacy come into the picture? I do not see it. Instead, I see the cold war rethoric returning at alarming speed.