in this case the butter is a true visual improvement

peanut butter has taught me a lot in life but never anything about russia's political bullying

*Want to know only what someone else wants you to know is going on?
fixed

yeah, yeah.. Russia are peace keeping
bombing ports and cities inside main Georgia

awesome

*spreading democracy to ports and cities inside main Georgia
fixed

two wrongs don't make a right
you're no better than the americans..

but at least people in the US protested the Iraq war on large scale, while people in Russia are too nationalistic and brainwashed to ever get a glimpse how fucked their government is

let's see how you twist this around ;)

There is nothing to twist. Countries defend their interests and their citizens, otherwise they have no reason to exist. If YOU on the other hand need to twist things into horror stories about blood thirsty evil Russians, it's YOUR problem.
I would consult this video for further info:
http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

you got something mixed up there.

sending troops into another country is not "defending", or are you agreeing with Bush/Cheney logic now?


btw. I just read an article in a German monthly magazine "Geo", which is by far the best magazine I know, which is why I actually subcribed to it.
Anway it is the june edition which has an article about the BTC pipeline and in it they quote a Georgian engineer: "the president is a fan of the BTC. he expects more independence from moscow, a better connection to the western world and military aid." besides that they write that Georgia gets 50 million yearly for transfer fees.

just thought I wuold bring up again that oil/gas is indeed a factor in this...

"you got something mixed up there.

sending troops into another country is not "defending", or are you agreeing with Bush/Cheney logic now?"

Did you just admit to not know absolutely anything about geopolitics?

And I dont disagree oil is no factor, it's just that it wasn't the main thing by far in this Georgian-SouthOssetian conflict.

sif, there is a thing called preemtitive attack, which is supposedly a defensive strategy. but in the end it is always an attack.

but I suppose you were defending the Russians in Southosseatia, right? Well guess what it still is an attac.

What would the Russians if another choose to "defend" their people on Russian territory.
If at all that viewpoint is proof of an arrogant, self centered behaviour.

But you're right regarding geopolitics one should really expect such behaviour from Russia...


And how do you really not manage to get it, saakashvili felt safe because he thought he had the backing form the Western world to do whatever he wanted and having the pipeline in his backyard nurtured that feeling.
Sure, the conflict between Ossetians (or should I say Russians?) and Georgians has many more reasons, but I really do believe without the BTC it would not have escalated at least not this time.

"but I suppose you were defending the Russians in Southosseatia, right? Well guess what it still is an attack"

Yeah, if you watch CNN.

"What would the Russians if another choose to "defend" their people on Russian territory.
If at all that viewpoint is proof of an arrogant, self centered behaviour."

There is no arrogance in politics. Just like there are no morals. Russia is the stronger one and will look out for the interests of its citizens and close allies better then a weaker one. What the hell, I'm not Politics101?
On the other hand, it wouldn't bombard a civilian city the way Saakashvili did. Russia is a multi-national empire as you could see from its use of Chechen battalions and doesn't do ethnic cleansing.

"But you're right regarding geopolitics one should really expect such behaviour from Russia..."

It would depend on whos in control in Russia, fuck-up idiot Yeltsin/Gorbachev whos prime minister negotiated with terrorist on live television or a decent leader like Medvedev/Putin.

"And how do you really not manage to get it, saakashvili felt safe because he thought he had the backing form the Western world to do whatever he wanted and having the pipeline in his backyard nurtured that feeling."

Ugh. Yes, thats his role. What he felt is irrelevant to the reality of things, obviously. I'm not having this pointless discussion anymore, as I'm not learning in it anything at all.

guess what i don't watch CNN, as opposed to you obviously ;)

And if you don't know the defition of an attack you really shouldn't discuss it...


and there is an incredibly amount of arrogance in politics, well maybe not in politics as such but in the leaders making the political decisions.

you need examples to understand?

- a certain president didn't believe Russia would react
- another president thought Vietnam could be won easily


you know, the interesting thing is:

even if Russia did now start an ethnicy cleansing in Georgia you would either deny it or defend it. Because you are unable to look for any mistake in the Russian system except for the parts where it could be even more like the "gold old times".
And pride is never a good advisor...

even if Russia did now start an ethnicy cleansing in Georgia you would either deny it or defend it. Because you are unable to look for any mistake in the Russian system except for the parts where it could be even more like the "gold old times".
And pride is never a good advisor...

quoted for truth.

"even if Russia did now start an ethnicy cleansing in Georgia you would either deny it or defend it."

If this or that. No I wouldn't and no, it wouldn't. And no, you're not a telepath and no, you can't predict the future.

"Because you are unable to look for any mistake in the Russian system except for the parts where it could be even more like the "gold old times"."

What the hell does that mean? I criticize Russian system, which isn't actually a system or isn't Russian all the time. What the hell do mistakes of "the system" have to do with "being even more like gold old times"? If "ethnic cleansing" was one of the ingredients of "gold old times", you would make more sense, but it's not, and you don't.
I'm sure you tried to say something deep but in the end you just rehashed some "political moralization" nonsense which makes up your number one postulate which has been stuffed into you in early childhood.

"And pride is never a good advisor..."

Neither is CNN.

learn to read idiot, I DON'T WATCH CNN.

Read it now?

And as I wrote somewhere else I don't trust any type of media that produces news daily and therefore has to be the first to write something.

But i supposed to ignore that as well, while replying to said post.

And no not in every country are political opinions spoonfed to children, I especially know this cause I often meet Germans who have different opinions than me. Also my opinion somewhat differs from the official German views...

While yours kinda perfectly fit those of the Russian/Sowjet government, funny...

Oh and please read the first line again before replying.

CNN

i think his CNN obsession was installed by the russian government in this way "when someone opposes russian state politics and all arguments fail to correct his views.. denounce him of watching CNN!!".. oh noes

my god, you're stupid

I'm not sure.

I think it's more along the line: If anyone disagrees they are a victim of western brainwashing and propaganda which is done by their media. And since demiurge seems to watch CNN quite a lot (seeing how much he comments on them) ...

the troll is on you, raged, etc

I just scroll to the end of these becks-yeltsin discussions to read the point usually being "raged troll rofl". saves a lot of time

yeh, in my own little world take it as a win tho ;)

not really hard to do against yeltsin init. just don't know how you cba to do it over and over.

basically, because it forces me to think about those things in more detail and also trains my English and my argumentation skills.
The last being two of the reasons why I actually visit this sides.


uh... besides trolling of course (can't loose my reputation :) )


/edit: and in this Yeltsin's case it also trains staying calm in discussion :)

you krauts.. always practicing..

:D

erm...georgia sent troops/tanks in first...in that sense russia came to restore order/remove the aggressors.

that being said they shouldnt be there now. georgian forces left the 2 zones whereas russia is in non-breakaway regions of georgia with attitudes of "it'll take as long as it takes" to remove their forces from the region.

thats the only thing of russia's part i disagree with. all the excess force whine i dont buy; georgia's gone into a zone with military force that they shouldnt and paid the price of going up against a much larger & stronger nation...excess force is standard punishment (set infrastructure back a decade or two etc) and a way of reducing the likelihood of georgia or other nations trying similar things

I never said Georgia did not commit a crime!

I am saying that Russia did attack a sovereign country, and they did not only defend people Ossetians on that territory. They occupied Gori which is outside of Ossetia and Human Rights Watch states that civilians have been killed by bombs in the process.

And then of course their is the history to look at. Because in Chechnya Russia behaved somewhat similar to the Georgians in Ossetia.

i like how you say attacked when it was a retaliation of georgia's attacks. i know about the occupation of gori as its 1 of the things i disagreed about along with the slow troop withdrawals as mentioned in my post

and lol @ civilians being killed by bombs...that happens all the time & when troops/tanks are going through cities its inevitable.

dont look at the past, the thread is about the current situation not a 'which country has done the worst things in the past 2000 years' thread

retaliation for what?
Georgia did not attack Russian territory.
You should learn what a sovereign country is.

and according to the HWR the Civilians were killed by bombs in cities outside of Ossetia, with the reports indicating they were cluster bombs which are to banned this year by over 100 countries.

And I really don't know how a "lol @ civilians killed" makes any sense...

and you might not remember chechnya, but it's not 2000 years, in fact the conflict there is still not really finished ... maybe here's the spot where you could throw in a "lol @ deportations" or "lol @ terrorism"

And that conflict gains even more relevance when you trouble yourself to look at a map.

that conflict means nothing in this thread as its not related. its like relating some war britain was involved in when building its empire with its part in iraq; just because the countries been involved in both doesnt mean theyre relevant to one another. if you want to talk about that then create a Russia-Chechnya thread.

the civilian lol comment was explained right after it was said. you said it like it was a surprise that civilians had died in the war, they die in every war.

the bombs were outside of Ossetia because theyve bombed georgia...its not surprising people have died outside of Ossetia when bombs are landing outside of Ossetia

georgia attacked its breakaway regions which many have become russian citizens, regardless of the length of time which theyve become such. many fled from the georgians into North Ossetia and russia because of being scared of the georgian aggression. russia came in to help its citzens of however many years (a citizen of 1 year should be just as important as a 1 year old child & should be protected)

it's a factor in establishing why I don't buy the "we are nice people, we only defend our citizens" approach from Russia
and it's way more similar with England Imperialism and Iraq both from the times and the situation.
If for example Japan now attack Iran for fear of their WOMD and England/USA went in to defend Iran, then that would be a much better analogy.

But what can you expect from someone who finds it acceptable that Civilians die in defense of civilians, or who thinks that an one year old baby who can't save itself or make it's own decisions shuold be comparable to someone older who made a decision that fueled the escalation...

You know Russia could have send troops into Ossetia and leave their cluster bombs at home (if they really used them) and not enter other territories of Georgia.

It is an attack, no matter how you want to turn it. Or do you think Afghanistan or Iraq were no attacks?

But what can you expect from someone who finds it acceptable that Civilians die in defense of civilians, or who thinks that an one year old baby who can't save itself or make it's own decisions shuold be comparable to someone older who made a decision that fueled the escalation...

Sorry for thinking that 1 life is as valuable as another when neither individual is a rapist/murderer. I didn't say civilian death is acceptable I said it was inevitable. Please find me information of a war that's taken place in a city(ies) that hasn't had any civilian casualties.

You know Russia could have send troops into Ossetia and leave their cluster bombs at home (if they really used them) and not enter other territories of Georgia.

they sent troops in after bombings, it doesn't make sense to go in risking your own people just to save a few more of theirs. entering Georgia is giving out a message just as it was to bomb key Georgian infrastructure. if they weren't to punish them then what's to stop them attempting it again a year later or other countries attempting similar.

Or do you think Afghanistan or Iraq were no attacks?

baka

I wasn't talking about value of life, I was talking about the fact that an adult is able to make decision and risk or protect his life (and if it's just running away), a baby is not able to do that. Therefore a baby needs more protection.

Please find me information of a war that's taken place in a city(ies) that hasn't had any civilian casualties.

So you it's a war now? Cause that really helps my point that it was an attack... And which country choose to extend the fighting to Gori?
And what exactly have the civilians in Georgia got to do with what the political and military leaders do? And don't say they voted them democratically, you should know better...

in the end, no matter the reasons or justifications, they voluntarily risked the death of innocent civilians and I really can't believe you want to call that "defending".

And also, how many times in history has bombing of civilians ever helped to bring peace? I can only think of Japan and that was a completely different dimension from cluster bombs.

baka

I can has watch animes, too. Does calling someone idiot in a foreign language make you look smarter? Hohlkopf.
But please be so kind to answer my question, do you think the war in Afghanisthan was an attack or a defensive action.
You know seeing that Americans were killed by forces who were accepted by the rulers of Afghanistan and that there were factions who asked for military aid against the taliban.

attack you nonse, such a retarded question hence baka

you say like all people are the same. they're not. some are elderly, some are young and still suffer problems with mobility or mental health and therefore require assistance to evacuate in the case of an offensive maneuver

why ask stupid questions on a subject you've probably read news recently on. you know who entered gori. its a tactical maneuver...why would a country choose to fight in regions where their own citizen's live if they can push back forces into their own country?

again a stupid question about civilians. a large extent of a country's infrastructure is in cities with large numbers of civilians; if you wish to cripple a countries infrastructure to teach them a lesson as it were then civilians will die. their voting a government into power isn't the reason and doesn't justify their deaths, it's just a case of being in the wrong place at the wrong time. no civilian deaths are justified but it doesn't mean it can be removed entirely and all the cries about such casualties are futile in a war. and if you think georgia with it's troops and tanks didn't cause any civilian deaths you're crazy. you shift all blame on to russia like some US broadcaster

the defending was referring to their entrance into the breakaway regions. i've said above i disagree with the entrance into georgia but it's not entirely surprising as mentioned with the pushing back and pre-occupation of georgian troops

it might not bring peace in the sense of the two leaders going for a cup of tea and a game of tennis but it can bring (as evidenced) an end to the conflict through surrender. its like in swordfish:
They bomb a church, we bomb 10. They hijack a plane, we take out an airport. They execute American Russian tourist, we tactically nuke an entire city. Our job is to make terrorism so horrific that is becomes unthinkable to attack Americans Russians.

hold on a second
you really need to differentiate a little more. The world really is not black and white,

"I never said Georgia did not commit a crime!"

does this quote look familiar? also somewhere else I wrote that Georgia obviously started this.

if that mean acting like a US broadcaster, then you'd be a Russian Propaganda minister. There, black and white enough? Can we start cold war now?

So, now please try to see a little more detail.
Related to that, yes I only read more about the specific subject after the escalation and only a few general things about Georgia before that. What about you?

Anyway, I am of the opinion, that russia wasn't completely unhappy with what happened, as it gave them the opportunity to enter the country. and they grabed that opportunity. (the reason i brought up Chechnya in the discussion, was btw that they don't support indeendent states as such...)

But that still is not the point, as I wrote in the statement before, the justification is completely irrelevant. If you enter a sovereign territory with military force it's an ATTACK.

Oh, and did you hear about the resolution Russia proposed that does not mention the sovereignity of Georgia (with or without Ossetia).

I'm really not sure this will be over soon even if (South-) Ossetia becomes an independent state with Russain peacekeepers.


In the end, stop believing there are good guys in wars. Look a little closer.

tl;dr bored now

not longer than yours ;)


and about justice a la holoywood, who gets to decide who is bad and who is good? Who is peaceful and who should be bombed?

Cuase if you ask in the middle east, i don't think they wuold make the same choices as you ;)

What's good?
What's bad?

and there's that too, yes.

Maybe if anything will come out of this will be an actual stance on indepedant states from G8 nations (etc) instead of all the hypocrisy of supporting some but not others.

it wasn't the main thing by far in this Georgian-SouthOssetian conflict.

It certainly wasn't to defend 'Russian citizens'.

Yeah but it's the same with all recent wars/invasions etc.

Tell me more, you seem to know a lot.

I know nothing :O) as do you... but even the Russians haven't seriously pursued that rhetoric.

yes, we know how Russia protects its citizens
"refusing outside help and letting people die like rats in a submarine" rings a bell?

'Evil men have no songs.' How is it that the Russians have songs?
-- Friedrich Nietzsche

Do you have problems with logic?

"yes, we know how Russia protects its citizens"

"refusing outside help and letting people die like rats in a submarine" rings a bell?

Yeah, it rings a "you don't know the diffrence between bombardment of civilian population and top secret submarine missiles tests gone wrong as well as outside and Russia" bell. Zing Zing it goes.

a bell goes "ding", moran

It's actually "moron", honey muffin.

lol

*swoosh*

indeed

Russia spreading democracy? to Georgia? lol

well georgia threw the first rock at that other country next to it and so russia is throwing a meteor :p

but i dont understand all the political aspects envolving those 3 countries tho.

ossetia is not a country AFAIK

Yet

I almost hope this helps McCain win the presidential campaign so I have a reason to move to Canada.

I hear Vancouver is lovely.

Russia is by far the most impressive country for brainwashing, seriously, there's just a point where you have to admire it.

Fuck knows who was in the wrong or whatever in this 'war' but it was good to see the usual Russian borderline insanity.

Russia will rule the world.
mark these words.

Yes, you have to admire it, at this point it doesn't matter if it is good or bad, even bad can be perfect.

On the other hand, what is going on is pointless. War is empty thing...

if talking about perfect, look south of Russia.

from now on I'm skipping all russia related threads and watching this instead:



took me a while to figure out how the fucking embed works. :d

have my appreciation for finding out how the embeding stuff works ;)

awesome

rofl, can't stop laughing at the gracious russian soldiers

If the Swedish military service was anything like that, I'd never leave the army!

u only have to get to the top

way ahead of their time tbh

how the fuck does it work anyway

http://www.esreality.com/?a=post&id=1492656

that > riverdance

fuck this is sooooooooooo nice

Russian administration consists of a bunch of machos with Putin at the front of them.

russians are brainwashed and the people who say russians are brainwashed are brainwashed and the people who say both are brainwashed are brainwashed

ur opinion is nothink irl

peanut butter jelly time