Webmaster Forum

Webmaster Forum (http://www.v7n.com/forums/index.php)
-   Controversial Social Issues (http://www.v7n.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=49)
-   -   Russia and Georgia at war (http://www.v7n.com/forums/showthread.php?t=96094)

Bernard 08-08-2008 08:14 AM

Russia and Georgia at war
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Margarita Antidze, Reuters
Tensions over Georgia's rebel territory of South Ossetia exploded on Friday when Georgia tried to assert control over the region with tanks and rockets, and Russia sent forces to repel the assault.

Fighting between Georgian forces and Russian-backed separatists raged in and around Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, after Tbilisi sent troops to take back the territory, which broke away in the 1990s.

A senior Georgian security official said Russian jets had bombed the Vaziani military airbase outside the Georgian capital Tbilisi, and President Mikheil Saakashvili said 150 Russian tanks, armored personnel carriers and other vehicles had entered South Ossetia from neighboring Russia.

He also said Georgian forces had downed two Russian jets.

The Russian RIA news agency quoted a source in the regional Russian military headquarters as saying Russian armor had rolled into Tskhinvali, which Georgia had earlier claimed to have "freed". There was no immediate confirmation from Russia that it had sent bombers.

The crisis, the first to confront Russian President Dmitry Medvedev since he took office in May, looked close to spiraling into full-blown war in a region emerging as a key energy transit route, and where Russia and the West are vying for influence.
...
Georgia said its operation, launched after a week of clashes between separatists and Georgian troops in which nearly 20 people were killed, was aimed at ending South Ossetia's effective independence, won in a 1991-92 war.

The majority of the roughly 70,000 people living in South Ossetia are ethnically distinct from Georgians. They say they were forcibly absorbed into Georgia under Soviet rule and now want to exercise their right to self-determination.
...
At an emergency session of the United Nations on Thursday night, Russia failed to push through a statement that would have called on both sides to stop fighting immediately.

Council diplomats said a phrase calling on all sides to "renounce the use of force" had been unacceptable to the Georgians, backed by the United States and the Europeans.

Saakashvili, who wants to take his small Caucasus nation into NATO, has made it a priority to win back control of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, another rebel region on the Black Sea.

The issue has bedeviled Georgia's relations with Russia, which is angered by Tbilisi's moves towards the Western fold and its pursuit of NATO membership.

Russia sends forces into Georgian rebel conflict

Quote:

Originally Posted by Richard Beeston, Times Online
... The West, in particular America, has also stoked the regional fire. At the Nato summit in Bucharest earlier this year it pressed for Georgia and Ukraine’s membership of the alliance. The move was blocked by the Europeans, but Nato did give a commitment to offer the two countries membership at a later date. That move was seen in Moscow as a direct challenge to its dominance in what it calls the “near abroad”, the former Soviet republics.

Since then, Russia has made it clear in word and deed that it will do anything to prevent Nato’s expansion on its western and southern flanks.

America and Britain are particularly closely involved in providing military assistance to the Georgians in the form of arms and training. The support is aimed at encouraging the rise of Georgia as an independent, sovereign state. But the help is also partly a means of protecting the oil pipeline across Georgia that carries crude from the Caspian to the Black Sea, the only export route that bypasses Russia’s stranglehold on energy exports from the region.

For all these reasons, the stakes in this mini war could not be higher.

If Georgia succeeds in reimposing its sovereignty over South Ossetia in the face of Russian opposition, it will be a huge setback to Russia’s influence in the region. It could also embolden other former Soviet republics, like Ukraine, Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, who are also seeking to break out of Moscow’s grip.

A defeat for the Georgians could well signal the end of Mr Saakashvili and set back severely Georgia’s efforts to establish itself as a modern Western-looking democracy.

Either way, the conflict risks further undermining already strained relations between Russia and the West and encouraging those on both sides who would like to see a return to Cold War suspicion and rivalry.

Analysis: why the Russia-Georgia conflict matters to the West

http://qqqqssss.files.wordpress.com/...eorgia_map.jpg

Franc Tireur 08-08-2008 09:45 AM

I really don't understand this war, people from Russia are very intelligent, how come they cannot negociate or talk each other with their neighbors?

South 08-08-2008 11:44 AM

Scary stuff. These headlines look way too familiar.

TechWizard 08-08-2008 12:13 PM

This closely resembles the ramp up to WWI does it not?

D3n!ss3_gUrL 08-08-2008 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 913770)
This closely resembles the ramp up to WWI does it not?

Indeed. And this is getting alarming, isn't not?

abercrombie 08-13-2008 10:23 AM

i think the US kinda hurt their anti-invasion ethics when we went into iraq and stayed there. if there's a peaceful settlement, i have a feeling the russians will want to oust the goregia president.

South 08-13-2008 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by abercrombie (Post 916760)
i think the US kinda hurt their anti-invasion ethics when we went into iraq and stayed there. if there's a peaceful settlement, i have a feeling the russians will want to oust the goregia president.

How is forcibly ousting a democratically elected president a peaceful solution?

xceedbd 08-21-2008 08:24 AM

i personally give no place for war. in it nothing u find well for nation !

TechWizard 08-21-2008 12:08 PM

I wish everyone would stop being so stupid when it comes to the Iraq/Hussein war. First and foremost in the early 90's Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait. In response and in full undisputed support of the U.N. and nearly every nation on the planet. The U.S. led a coalition in and drove back Iraq. As a request by Hussein not to decimate his entire 1 million man army he signed a peace treaty. In this peace treaty there were specific provisions that were required to be continually met for a period agreed upon in the treaty. At any time if these provisions were not freely and openly met the U.S. led coalition reserved the right to return and finish kicking his ass. Now I don't see how in any way you see that us going back would be illegal under those conditions.

But lets take this even further, there was resolution after resolution after resolution by the U.N. throughout the 90's and leading up to the current war with Iraq by the U.N. and yes there was a U.N. mandate that allowed the use of force, so there was a second ok from others other than just the U.S. so get over it, it wasn't an illegal war.

Zap 08-21-2008 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 921636)
I wish everyone would stop being so stupid when it comes to the Iraq/Hussein war. First and foremost in the early 90's Iraq illegally invaded Kuwait. In response and in full undisputed support of the U.N. and nearly every nation on the planet. The U.S. led a coalition in and drove back Iraq. As a request by Hussein not to decimate his entire 1 million man army he signed a peace treaty. In this peace treaty there were specific provisions that were required to be continually met for a period agreed upon in the treaty. At any time if these provisions were not freely and openly met the U.S. led coalition reserved the right to return and finish kicking his ass. Now I don't see how in any way you see that us going back would be illegal under those conditions.

But lets take this even further, there was resolution after resolution after resolution by the U.N. throughout the 90's and leading up to the current war with Iraq by the U.N. and yes there was a U.N. mandate that allowed the use of force, so there was a second ok from others other than just the U.S. so get over it, it wasn't an illegal war.

Quote:

There were also serious legal questions surrounding the launching of the war against Iraq and the Bush Doctrine of preemptive war. On September 16, 2004 Kofi Annan, the Secretary General of the United Nations, said of the invasion, "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the U.N. charter. From our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."
Source

Please take your lies elsewhere. Thanks. ;)

John Scott 08-21-2008 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap (Post 921710)

Please take your lies elsewhere. Thanks. ;)

The irony of Zap, v7n's biggest pathological liar, accusing somebody else of lying, it's just too funny.

TechWizard 08-21-2008 08:14 PM

Zap obviously doesn't know how to read. Read through all of the resolutions through the 90's leading all the way up to the invasion. And if you fail to satisfy your hatred towards the self preserving actions by the U.S. that has saved your ass on more than one occasion then refer back to the treaty of Desert Storm for anything else you need as far as making it a legal action. Like I said, the treaty when not followed by Insane Hussein, allows us the right to return and finish the ass kicking he weaseled out of then.

With the restrictions of the treaty nearing their end it was becoming more and more important to either ensure that the threat would not continue and grow, or to change the government and give it back to the tortured people of Iraq where it should have been in the first place.

If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should be living in Iran or Syria or some other country that doesn't afford you the freedoms that you obviously don't appreciate or understand the cost of.

Zap 08-21-2008 08:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Scott (Post 921746)
The irony of Zap, v7n's biggest pathological liar, accusing somebody else of lying, it's just too funny.

Back that up with proof or shut up, liar.

Wonder if you're going to revoke your own posting priviledges, now that you've been caught lying. :roll:

You're a joke. I'd say that you are a tool, but that would imply that you have some sort of usefulness.

Zap 08-21-2008 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 921803)
Zap obviously doesn't know how to read. Read through all of the resolutions through the 90's leading all the way up to the invasion. And if you fail to satisfy your hatred towards the self preserving actions by the U.S. that has saved your ass on more than one occasion then refer back to the treaty of Desert Storm for anything else you need as far as making it a legal action. Like I said, the treaty when not followed by Insane Hussein, allows us the right to return and finish the ass kicking he weaseled out of then.

With the restrictions of the treaty nearing their end it was becoming more and more important to either ensure that the threat would not continue and grow, or to change the government and give it back to the tortured people of Iraq where it should have been in the first place.

If you have a problem with that then perhaps you should be living in Iran or Syria or some other country that doesn't afford you the freedoms that you obviously don't appreciate or understand the cost of.

I think your dilusions are getting the better of you now and allowing you to make a fool of yourself.
The US has not saved my ass on more than one occasion.
If you're going to post bull****, provide sources to back up your claims.

The UN and most of the civilized countries in the world say it was an illegal war.
Wake up and smell your bull****, dude. It's starting to make you look ridiculous.
Sorry if the truth hurts, but your Iraq war is illegal.

TechWizard 08-21-2008 09:22 PM

England, Spain, Australia, Georgia, Japan, and a number of other countries all have or had troops in Iraq along with the U.S. and supported the action initially. What most countries of the free world are you talking about?? France, and Germany? France and Germany both by the way were later caught up in the oil for food scandal so I wonder if there were other reasons for their objections?? A large portion of the U.N. is made up of socialist countries, monarchies and middle east Muslim countries so I couldn't see any reason they would want to abstain or oppose(at least in public).

And yes the U.S. has saved your ass on more than once whether you want to freely admit it or not. You wouldn't be allowed to practice your free speech, free thought or any other rights you take for granted if it weren't for repeated American blood throughout the last century and now again in this one. You really think the extremists would stop with just the U.S.??? If the U.S. fell, would Canada have the resource or ability to defend itself from all aggressors?

As for me being full of bull****, perhaps if you stopped drinking all that kool-aid you'd be able to see past the glass handed to you and use a little common sense and logic once in a while

Zap 08-22-2008 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 921837)
And yes the U.S. has saved your ass on more than once whether you want to freely admit it or not. You wouldn't be allowed to practice your free speech, free thought or any other rights you take for granted if it weren't for repeated American blood throughout the last century and now again in this one. You really think the extremists would stop with just the U.S.??? If the U.S. fell, would Canada have the resource or ability to defend itself from all aggressors?

That's both a lie and an insult. Stop drinking your own Koolaid, buddy.
You were asked for sources and provided none.
Provide proof of the US saving Canada's ass, just one incident will suffice. ;)

South 08-22-2008 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap (Post 922078)
Provide proof of the US saving Canada's ass, just one incident will suffice. ;)

We keep buying your nasty ginger ale. That's gotta be worth something toward good will at least.

TechWizard 08-22-2008 11:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Zap (Post 922078)
That's both a lie and an insult. Stop drinking your own Koolaid, buddy.
You were asked for sources and provided none.
Provide proof of the US saving Canada's ass, just one incident will suffice. ;)

Nazi/Japanes WWII what the hell, do you have no concept of history? That's only one instance. You think Canada would be Canada had the Nazi's won the war? What about the Cold War? Do you think if our democracy had fallen to Communism you would still be free? What about the War on Terrorism? As I said, do you honestly think you are secluded from the rest of the world where extremism is concerned? Don't be so stupid. I don't have to quote facts or give you links, it's all common knowledge, WWI, WWII, The Cold War, The War on Terror, and common sense, your way of life and freedom are dependent on all of these things so what else do you need??

Zap 08-22-2008 07:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by South (Post 922084)
We keep buying your nasty ginger ale. That's gotta be worth something toward good will at least.

Goodwill, yes! And you get a huge helping of gratitude from me personally for taking Celine Dion off of our hands. :mrgreen:
We want Mike Myers back, though. So take good care of him. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 922178)
Nazi/Japanes WWII what the hell, do you have no concept of history? That's only one instance. You think Canada would be Canada had the Nazi's won the war? What about the Cold War? Do you think if our democracy had fallen to Communism you would still be free? What about the War on Terrorism? As I said, do you honestly think you are secluded from the rest of the world where extremism is concerned? Don't be so stupid. I don't have to quote facts or give you links, it's all common knowledge, WWI, WWII, The Cold War, The War on Terror, and common sense, your way of life and freedom are dependent on all of these things so what else do you need??

That's a pretty common misconception amongst dillusional guys like you. You've got a lot of "what ifs" in there. Quit living in a dream world, gamer. I asked for specific instances where the US saved Canada, not imaginary scenarios where it could happen. ;)

And WWII??? That's a joke. We were doing just fine fighting the Nazis long before the US finally decided to join the party. Check your own history. While doing so, you'll find that the Germans were already defeated before the bombs were dropped on Japan.

The cold war??? Are you dumb as well as dillusional? The US didn't save Canada from the cold war. The US didn't save anybody from the cold war. The US was half responsible for it. How can you be so daft? If anything, during the cold war, it was the US and the USSR that everyone needed saving from. That's funny. The US and the USSR have a pissing contest and you want the rest of us to credit the US for saving us from the pissing contest. :lol:

Now on to terrorism. Yeah. Canada stayed behind and took the leading role in Afghanistan. You know... the country that the terrorists were based that knocked down your buildings in NY. Yeah. We stayed there to try to finish the job that the US started but then left to go and fight an illegal war in Iraq. The US did leave behind a few to help us out, but we stepped up and took the lead on that one when you guys dropped the ball. So, we seem to be fighting terrorism just fine without you. And, to top it all off, we're fighting a very well armed Taliban, thanks to the US supplying them with tons of weapons. Oh yeah... you're my hero! :roll:

I'm fully aware that we are not secluded but we do just fine without US interference. No offence, but we can take care of ourselves, thanks. Don't try to be the hero. It's arrogant of you and insulting to me. I think it might be time to ask your doctor to increase your medication.

Quote:

Originally Posted by thegamerslink (Post 922178)
I don't have to quote facts or give you links, it's all common knowledge

Translation: "You asked for proof. I got nothing."

If you want credit for saving us from anything, elect a peaceful president and keep them in there! Then, maybe I'll credit you for saving us and the rest of the world from your aggressive and combative foreign policy.

TechWizard 08-22-2008 08:21 PM

You're perception of how things have happened in history is beyond distorted. Read some history books. There has been a constant fight between socialism/communism/anarchy versus freedom and democracy. The U.S. has always been the ones coming to the rescue you know it and so does everyone else. Even now the U.S. is the country that provides the most financial support and humanitarian aid to anyone and everyone in the rest of the world in comparison to any other country. But yet that isn't good enough everyone still wants more. It's beyond ridiculous.

When the U.S. entered WWII the Allies were getting their asses handed to them. That's fact, and had Japan not attacted Pearl Harbor it would have been to late and the world would have fallen to the Nazi's that's also fact. The winner of that war was the ones who got the Atomic Bomb first plain and simple. Had Germany gotten it before we did it would have been all over and the Allies would have surrendered by lack of choice just as Japan was forced to do. And I don't seem to remember any references any where about the Canadian Navy having an impact in the Atlantic or the Pacific in that time period, so how is it you were doing fine on your own again? Staying away from the big fights??

As for getting a peaceful president, I nor any other American with half a brain wants any President more willing to sit back and allow our country or any other free country to be continuously attacked or become destroyed in the interest of avoiding conflict or war.

In some instances you just don't have the choice to put your head in the sand and hope your ass is not noticed. Sometimes you have to actually defend yourself and stand up for your principles and responsibilities. And I don't think I remember a time that Canada was ever in the lead of any military action, or had more support committed than anyone else. When did that ever happen?


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 PM.

3.8.7