Russian Federation <> Georgia

edijs · 12-08-2008, 07:18 AM

Okay, so it's been like three full days since the outbreak of a all-out war between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Georgia. I realise that most of the HWF members are quite far away, but I feel like it's happening right next to me (a few thousand kms approx.); Thus, I want to start off a opinion thread on this thing, and also for following the timeline of the war itself.

So, I'll start it off. First of all - both sides are a bit of aholes here. The Georgians - they wanted to stop the independence-wanting South Ossetia from getting loose by brutal military force, which sucks big time. But, the russians penetrated Georgian sovereign territory to "save" the south ossetians. Now, when the russians themselves were kicking some Chechnyan ass, they said that it's a russian internal thing and no countries are to judge them. but, when the georgians have the same internal thing, the russians go in with their military. C'mon, wtf? Thus, despide the fact that the Georgians were quite aggressive to their own people, there is no reason why russia should be attacking georgia at such a scale while calling it a Peace keeping op. Well, obviously not, as continuing the bombardement when the georgians have stopped and advancig beyond the borders of south ossetia doesn't freakin look to me like Peace keeping at all. So, as much as I hate to take sides, as a citizen of a NATO member state and also because of the official opinion on this thing of my government, I do think that the RF is pursuing somewhat different objectives here... One other thing that makes me take this position is the fact that the RF ambassador was openly threatening the latvian government on posting anti-russian opinions - you know, don't do that or else there's gonna be sad stuff ... damn, this all makes me quite nervous.

Addis · 12-08-2008, 10:12 AM

Hypocrisy is rife in this world. It's everywhere you look and there's bound to be less than noble intentions in the governments of the most powerful countries. Russia has always been a threatening black sheep of Europe and continues to be today. They're not as bad as the Chinese but it's obvious there are underhand practices being used.

As far as the conflict goes, I don't know that much about it. From what you've said, it's not Russia's business to go interfering. But it's not like it's the first time a country has become involved in a conflict under the guise of peace keeping.

Pimp · 13-08-2008, 12:55 PM

Russia said it had pulled it's forces from Georgia yesterday but today on the BBC they filmed some Russian tanks still in south ossetia. who knows this might be the start of a 3rd world war they always seem to start in small skirmishes

Russia tested the UK's defenses nearly a year ago buy sending a bomber near UK territory (but not in it) and that alerted the UK to respond by sending its fighters, the Russians said that the UK fighters were professionals in their quick response.

I wonder who will win if there is a world war 3 and who will be on what side hmmmm

my guess is

Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam VS America, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea

donkey42 · 13-08-2008, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimp

I wonder who will win if there is a world war 3

nobody actually "wins" a war, the so called winner of a war is usually the government who spins the best propaganda to rally their people into taking up the fight for their country, which is "technically" lying but what do i know

Off Topic:

nothing, in the big scale of things

edijs · 14-08-2008, 06:08 AM

I cannot come to a third world war. This would be the stupidest thing ever. I mean - in world war 2, all the aggressive countries were led by people who were absolutely politically sure that their regime is the best. Hitler - wanted to purge the world off jews, jipsees and so on, but Stalin wanted comunism everywhere. Today - it's all about money and resources. I think that the world leaders understand that fighting for money is stupid beucause, if governements collapse, money looses value (industries collapse and there's nothing you can buy for money anymore). Also fighing for resources is stupid because: 1. the war itself will take A LOT of resources and thus is not worth it. 2. all the valuable resources that we need are mostly un-renewable, so they'll eventually run out. So, a WW3 is DUMB in its essence.

But anyway, if not a WW3, something serious might be coming our way. I hope that the responsible people will be responsible enough to make the risk of a escalation as low as possible, but still keep in mind that aggression - from whatever side it comes, is stupid and cowardly.

Pimp · 14-08-2008, 09:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by edijs

I cannot come to a third world war. This would be the stupidest thing ever. I mean - in world war 2, all the aggressive countries were led by people who were absolutely politically sure that their regime is the best. Hitler - wanted to purge the world off jews, jipsees and so on, but Stalin wanted comunism everywhere. Today - it's all about money and resources. I think that the world leaders understand that fighting for money is stupid beucause, if governements collapse, money looses value (industries collapse and there's nothing you can buy for money anymore). Also fighing for resources is stupid because: 1. the war itself will take A LOT of resources and thus is not worth it. 2. all the valuable resources that we need are mostly un-renewable, so they'll eventually run out. So, a WW3 is DUMB in its essence.

But anyway, if not a WW3, something serious might be coming our way. I hope that the responsible people will be responsible enough to make the risk of a escalation as low as possible, but still keep in mind that aggression - from whatever side it comes, is stupid and cowardly.

Your point is logical but you seem to have forgotten one factor and that is politicians are not responsible even when it comes to the economy of their own country.

Take for instance America and UK going after Iraq for oil (we all know its for oil and not for WMD) but yet the American government has spent billions upon billions of dollars to fund this war and they still haven't seen a single drop of oil.

So my friend wars will always occur no matter the cost.

But the question is, If WW III occurs will we use nuclear weapons and wipe each other out?????

A lot of people will say yes that's what will happen

but i see nuclear weapons in a different way and that is they are for defensive purposes and not for offensive. No country will dare launch a nuke because the second one nuke goes in the air hundred of other nukes will be launched on the aggressor.

So atm no one can launch a war on America or Russia or of any of the nuclear powered countries that is why America, UK and Isreal are worried about Iran achieving nuclear capabilities because then Iran will have the freedom to do anything it wants in the middle east and not America or Israel can do anything about it because Iran will have a nuke.

Pimp · 14-08-2008, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by donkey42

nobody actually "wins" a war, the so called winner of a war is usually the government who spins the best propaganda to rally their people into taking up the fight for their country, which is "technically" lying but what do i know

Off Topic:

nothing, in the big scale of things

We will all be losers

edijs · 14-08-2008, 12:50 PM

The Iraq war didn't take enough resources and the US Governmnet knew that it'll pay itself back. But world war 3 in no way will ever pay itself back because that would throw the world in a very,very bad economical crysis.

Swansen · 05-09-2008, 06:58 PM

No, Edijs is right, all any country cares about is money, thats it. In war, its very difficult to make money, your economy basically come to a halt, there is no way a world war will break out, if there was to be a war, it would be like the cold war, and it would be done with long range weapons, not with infantry. Lastly, china could care less about the rest of the world, they are rich as all get out right now, their people are ignorant, ect ect, if war breaks loose, they loose all the control they have gained, as well as their profit.
Ok, back on topic, so, what is Russia getting at then? like, what is their ultimate goal if they are not fighting for "peace" ?? I thought i caught wind of something going on in Russia, but i didn't do any follow up, so i'm curious now.

Pimp · 06-09-2008, 10:44 AM

What i basically was trying to say that the US did not start the Iraq war because of oil or money, because wars are very costly and you end up losing a lot out of it.

Anti-Trend · 07-09-2008, 08:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pimp

What i basically was trying to say that the US did not start the Iraq war because of oil or money, because wars are very costly and you end up losing a lot out of it.

From what I've seen, and based on the money that's changed hands, I would say that the US invaded Iraq because certain elements of our government wanted to make OPEC happy by dramatically reducing the amount of oil that Iraq produces. Exactly the opposite of what our very corporate and very biased media is reporting on this end ("war for oil", etc.), but from what I've seen, that's the theory which the facts support the most heavily.

As for Georgia, the whole situation sucks. It seems that the US government has been supporting the Georgian dictator, and are even offering NATO membership to Georgia. In fact, that they encouraged the invasion of Ossetia, promising US backing in the face of Russian retaliation. This of course, is not in the best interest of the US, Russia, or Georgia, but only a few individuals at the top of all parties involved. The US should have absolutely nothing to do with Georgia, let alone pushing for NATO induction. That would be like Russia offering Cuba membership in the Russian Federation, on the condition that they would invade the Florida Keys. The whole thing is nuts.

edijs · 08-09-2008, 05:52 AM

Letting Georgia into NATO is dumb. If the Russians make a move (and Georgia would be a member state), NATO has to attack Russia and that's insane. But then again, if NATO wouldn't attack, it would put the cause of NATO under a very big question mark of doubt.

As I stated already, attacking South Ossetia was a stupid thing the Georgians did and I don't know how far of a dictator Saakashvilli is, what I know is that it looks like blind violence is something of normal over there. See, the Georgians don't try to calm down their seperatic parts and don't try to come to an agreement, they just level them. Then, the Russians go in and kill a few thousand more. That's completely insane and dumb. Do they think that they're isolated or something? No military violence is justifyable on any of both sides. I think that Saakashvilli and Medvedev should be put into a dark jail cell, so that they can fight it out for a week or so. This all is really nuts.

Anti-Trend · 08-09-2008, 06:06 AM

Agreed, wholeheartedly. I expect "normal" people like us worldwide who happen to have some sense of what's going on are opposed to most things going on in the world today. Average folks just want to get by, live a good life, and do the best they can. Not die on some foreign battlefield so an aristocrat can buy another Yacht. It seems these people want nothing more than to bring about the end of the world, as speedily and messily as possible. Do they hand out LSD at country clubs, or what?

Pimp · 08-09-2008, 08:37 AM

The U.S was the catalyst for making Russia behave in this manner, because the U.S set up a missile defense network in Poland, and they said to Russia and to the whole world that this is in response to Iran's Nuclear/missile program which the U.S sees as a threat and will therefore protect the U.S from Iran's missiles. I, like a lot of people laughed at this remark by the U.S to Russia because Iran doesn't even have the capabilities to launch a missile at Poland let alone the U.S, this all seemed a bit obvious to me and to the Russian people that the U.S put these missile to CONTAIN the Russian Federation. Russia is now surrounded from all sides. To make things worse for Russia, Georgia wanted to join NATO, which is why Russia reacted with such brutality. Russia was wrong to do what it has done to Georgia but from a military point of view they where correct, but they were also wrong from a political point of view. The U.S want to contain Russia and control the Middle East.

Anti-Trend · 08-09-2008, 07:44 PM

It gives me a sliver of hope to see that some people have a clue what's going on, and aren't happy with it. This whole thing reminds me of an old Clash song:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Guns on the Roof by The Clash

I swear by Almighty God
To tell the whole truth
And nothing but the truth

Guns guns
They torture all the women and children
Then they've put the men to the gun
'Cos across the human frontier
Freedom's always on the run

Guns guns a-shaking in terror
Guns guns killing in error
Guns guns guilty hands
Guns guns shatter the lands

A system built by the sweat of the many
Creates assassins to kill off the few
Take any place and call it a court house
This is a place where no judge can stand

Sue the lawyers and burn all the papers
Unlock the key of the legal papers
A jury of a billion faces
Shouted out condemned out of hand

Guns guns, and nobody's kidding
Guns guns, or foolin' around
Guns guns, the violence is singing
Guns guns, a silence the sound

'N I Iike to be in Aferica
A-beatin' on the final drum
'N I like to be in U. S. S. R
Makin' sure these things will come
'N I like to be in U. S. A
Pretending that the wars are done
'N I like to be in Europa
Saying goodbye to everyone

Guns guns there's guns on the roof
Guns guns they're made to shoot

12-08-2008, 07:18 AM	#1 (permalink) Top
edijs Programmer Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 22 Male Posts: 523 Times Helpful: 16 My Mood: Busy Status: Offline My Computer	Russian Federation <> Georgia Okay, so it's been like three full days since the outbreak of a all-out war between the Russian Federation and the Republic of Georgia. I realise that most of the HWF members are quite far away, but I feel like it's happening right next to me (a few thousand kms approx.); Thus, I want to start off a opinion thread on this thing, and also for following the timeline of the war itself. So, I'll start it off. First of all - both sides are a bit of aholes here. The Georgians - they wanted to stop the independence-wanting South Ossetia from getting loose by brutal military force, which sucks big time. But, the russians penetrated Georgian sovereign territory to "save" the south ossetians. Now, when the russians themselves were kicking some Chechnyan ass, they said that it's a russian internal thing and no countries are to judge them. but, when the georgians have the same internal thing, the russians go in with their military. C'mon, wtf? Thus, despide the fact that the Georgians were quite aggressive to their own people, there is no reason why russia should be attacking georgia at such a scale while calling it a Peace keeping op. Well, obviously not, as continuing the bombardement when the georgians have stopped and advancig beyond the borders of south ossetia doesn't freakin look to me like Peace keeping at all. So, as much as I hate to take sides, as a citizen of a NATO member state and also because of the official opinion on this thing of my government, I do think that the RF is pursuing somewhat different objectives here... One other thing that makes me take this position is the fact that the RF ambassador was openly threatening the latvian government on posting anti-russian opinions - you know, don't do that or else there's gonna be sad stuff ... damn, this all makes me quite nervous. __________________ Come to Latvia \| Crossfade, Element Eighty, Seether \| The Best Series Ever \| Love the classics: PlayStationOne \| Works well for me \| Opera rocks \| My Ride Last edited by edijs; 12-08-2008 at 07:22 AM.

12-08-2008, 10:12 AM	#2 (permalink) Top
Addis The King Join Date: Jan 2004 Age: 18 Male Posts: 5,255 Times Helpful: 403 My Mood: Drunk Status: Offline My Computer	Hypocrisy is rife in this world. It's everywhere you look and there's bound to be less than noble intentions in the governments of the most powerful countries. Russia has always been a threatening black sheep of Europe and continues to be today. They're not as bad as the Chinese but it's obvious there are underhand practices being used. As far as the conflict goes, I don't know that much about it. From what you've said, it's not Russia's business to go interfering. But it's not like it's the first time a country has become involved in a conflict under the guise of peace keeping. __________________ Never trust a program you don't have the source code for. My website \| Powerful Desktop Linux \| Linux for human beings \| Linux for power users \| Linux for ricers

13-08-2008, 12:55 PM	#3 (permalink) Top
Pimp Captain of USS Defiant Join Date: Nov 2007 Age: 22 Male Posts: 882 Times Helpful: 28 My Mood: Dangerous Status: Offline My Computer	Russia said it had pulled it's forces from Georgia yesterday but today on the BBC they filmed some Russian tanks still in south ossetia. who knows this might be the start of a 3rd world war they always seem to start in small skirmishes Russia tested the UK's defenses nearly a year ago buy sending a bomber near UK territory (but not in it) and that alerted the UK to respond by sending its fighters, the Russians said that the UK fighters were professionals in their quick response. I wonder who will win if there is a world war 3 and who will be on what side hmmmm my guess is Russia, China, North Korea, Cuba, Iran, Vietnam VS America, Europe, Canada, Australia, Japan, South Korea __________________ "Space has no boundary, that is empirically more certain than any external observation. However, that does not imply that space is infinite" - Bernhard Riemann Last edited by Pimp; 13-08-2008 at 01:10 PM.

14-08-2008, 06:08 AM	#5 (permalink) Top
edijs Programmer Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 22 Male Posts: 523 Times Helpful: 16 My Mood: Busy Status: Offline My Computer	I cannot come to a third world war. This would be the stupidest thing ever. I mean - in world war 2, all the aggressive countries were led by people who were absolutely politically sure that their regime is the best. Hitler - wanted to purge the world off jews, jipsees and so on, but Stalin wanted comunism everywhere. Today - it's all about money and resources. I think that the world leaders understand that fighting for money is stupid beucause, if governements collapse, money looses value (industries collapse and there's nothing you can buy for money anymore). Also fighing for resources is stupid because: 1. the war itself will take A LOT of resources and thus is not worth it. 2. all the valuable resources that we need are mostly un-renewable, so they'll eventually run out. So, a WW3 is DUMB in its essence. But anyway, if not a WW3, something serious might be coming our way. I hope that the responsible people will be responsible enough to make the risk of a escalation as low as possible, but still keep in mind that aggression - from whatever side it comes, is stupid and cowardly. __________________ Come to Latvia \| Crossfade, Element Eighty, Seether \| The Best Series Ever \| Love the classics: PlayStationOne \| Works well for me \| Opera rocks \| My Ride

14-08-2008, 12:50 PM	#8 (permalink) Top
edijs Programmer Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 22 Male Posts: 523 Times Helpful: 16 My Mood: Busy Status: Offline My Computer	The Iraq war didn't take enough resources and the US Governmnet knew that it'll pay itself back. But world war 3 in no way will ever pay itself back because that would throw the world in a very,very bad economical crysis. __________________ Come to Latvia \| Crossfade, Element Eighty, Seether \| The Best Series Ever \| Love the classics: PlayStationOne \| Works well for me \| Opera rocks \| My Ride

06-09-2008, 10:44 AM	#10 (permalink) Top
Pimp Captain of USS Defiant Join Date: Nov 2007 Age: 22 Male Posts: 882 Times Helpful: 28 My Mood: Dangerous Status: Offline My Computer	What i basically was trying to say that the US did not start the Iraq war because of oil or money, because wars are very costly and you end up losing a lot out of it. __________________ "Space has no boundary, that is empirically more certain than any external observation. However, that does not imply that space is infinite" - Bernhard Riemann

08-09-2008, 05:52 AM	#12 (permalink) Top
edijs Programmer Join Date: Sep 2006 Age: 22 Male Posts: 523 Times Helpful: 16 My Mood: Busy Status: Offline My Computer	Letting Georgia into NATO is dumb. If the Russians make a move (and Georgia would be a member state), NATO has to attack Russia and that's insane. But then again, if NATO wouldn't attack, it would put the cause of NATO under a very big question mark of doubt. As I stated already, attacking South Ossetia was a stupid thing the Georgians did and I don't know how far of a dictator Saakashvilli is, what I know is that it looks like blind violence is something of normal over there. See, the Georgians don't try to calm down their seperatic parts and don't try to come to an agreement, they just level them. Then, the Russians go in and kill a few thousand more. That's completely insane and dumb. Do they think that they're isolated or something? No military violence is justifyable on any of both sides. I think that Saakashvilli and Medvedev should be put into a dark jail cell, so that they can fight it out for a week or so. This all is really nuts. __________________ Come to Latvia \| Crossfade, Element Eighty, Seether \| The Best Series Ever \| Love the classics: PlayStationOne \| Works well for me \| Opera rocks \| My Ride

08-09-2008, 06:06 AM	#13 (permalink) Top
Anti-Trend Nonconformist Geek Join Date: Oct 2003 Age: 27 Male Posts: 4,882 Times Helpful: 538 Status: Offline My Computer	Agreed, wholeheartedly. I expect "normal" people like us worldwide who happen to have some sense of what's going on are opposed to most things going on in the world today. Average folks just want to get by, live a good life, and do the best they can. Not die on some foreign battlefield so an aristocrat can buy another Yacht. It seems these people want nothing more than to bring about the end of the world, as speedily and messily as possible. Do they hand out LSD at country clubs, or what? __________________ See My Desktop \| Try Linux \| Install Linux \| Visit My Server \| Support Hardware Forums \| Easily rip DVDs in Linux \| Remember Everything

08-09-2008, 08:37 AM	#14 (permalink) Top
Pimp Captain of USS Defiant Join Date: Nov 2007 Age: 22 Male Posts: 882 Times Helpful: 28 My Mood: Dangerous Status: Offline My Computer	The U.S was the catalyst for making Russia behave in this manner, because the U.S set up a missile defense network in Poland, and they said to Russia and to the whole world that this is in response to Iran's Nuclear/missile program which the U.S sees as a threat and will therefore protect the U.S from Iran's missiles. I, like a lot of people laughed at this remark by the U.S to Russia because Iran doesn't even have the capabilities to launch a missile at Poland let alone the U.S, this all seemed a bit obvious to me and to the Russian people that the U.S put these missile to CONTAIN the Russian Federation. Russia is now surrounded from all sides. To make things worse for Russia, Georgia wanted to join NATO, which is why Russia reacted with such brutality. Russia was wrong to do what it has done to Georgia but from a military point of view they where correct, but they were also wrong from a political point of view. The U.S want to contain Russia and control the Middle East. __________________ "Space has no boundary, that is empirically more certain than any external observation. However, that does not imply that space is infinite" - Bernhard Riemann Last edited by Pimp; 08-09-2008 at 01:01 PM.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)