WTF is Russia Doing?

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

I don't think McCain sold radiation-hardened computer chips to Georgia... and I'm pretty sure that Georgian nationals weren't / aren't funneling campaign contributions to him - I imagine it would be all over the "MS"M if they were.

Oh, I don't know about that. McCain's personal involvement as well as that of his advisors (plural) in EADS getting the tanker contract slipped by pretty quickly/quietly. So did his campaign manager's involvement in the DHL/Airborne Express deal. And who could forget Bush's ok of the Clinton facilitated sale of Magnequench to China (ok, I guess everyone forgot it). I suppose when we need more magnets for our guided missiles that China will be happy to supply them, seeing that they now have the monopoly. As a side note, which is it, China is a valuable ally or they're an adversary? It seems silly to bash folks for dealing with them when we have built an economy that relies so heavily on them.
We're selling our country (quite effectively) on the Global market and have been doing it for quite some time. But so long as Paris and Britney are breathing there will be more "newsworthy" things for the "MSM" to tell us about.

[Gawain 0]

Quote

McCain's personal involvement as well as that of his advisors (plural) in EADS getting the tanker contract slipped by pretty quickly/quietly.

Dude, it had enough coverage to force the SecDef to personally oversee a new bid. Congress and others saw that bid process get wholly screwed up by the USAF.

Quote

So did his campaign manager's involvement in the DHL/Airborne Express deal.

Was there anything rotten in this deal? It's not like those companies didn't need each other, they still can't compete effectively against FedEx and UPS.

Quote

And who could forget Bush's ok of the Clinton facilitated sale of Magnequench to China (ok, I guess everyone forgot it).

Talk about MSM not covering...

Quote

We're selling our country (quite effectively) on the Global market and have been doing it for quite some time. But so long as Paris and Britney are breathing there will be more "newsworthy" things for the "MSM" to tell us about.

Alas, you are correct.

So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh
Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright
'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life
Make light!

[idrankwhat 0]

Quote

Dude, it had enough coverage to force the SecDef to personally oversee a new bid. Congress and others saw that bid process get wholly screwed up by the USAF.

I don't recall McCain's involvement being much of a story in the MSM. The story seemed to be more driven by the fact that a "foreign" company got the job over a "domestic" company. (Which, to be honest, I don't see much difference between the two. Aren't both planes built with similar amounts of foreign/domestic components? Probably should dig up an old thread for that one.)

Quote

So did his campaign manager's involvement in the DHL/Airborne Express deal.

Quote

Was there anything rotten in this deal? It's not like those companies didn't need each other, they still can't compete effectively against FedEx and UPS.

Only in that it's another example of a domestic company being sold to a foreign company which turns around and moves its jobs elsewhere. I'm willing to bet that McCain lost at least 8000 Ohio votes over that deal.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

Well, if one invades anothers country of course they are going to shoot at you. That does not make them any less innocent.

Hmmm... lets think about this. They shoot, but that doesn't make them less innocent??? Do you think before you reply? Last time I checked, you become a combatant once you take up arms and fight.

Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar
>fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I
>as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Let's use a more apt example.

Someone comes into your house and points a gun at your wife. You pull out your gun, shoot at him and miss. He runs off. What are you guilty of? How much time should you spend in jail?

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Well, if one invades anothers country of course they are going to shoot at you. That does not make them any less innocent.

Hmmm... lets think about this. They shoot, but that doesn't make them less innocent??? Do you think before you reply? Last time I checked, you become a combatant once you take up arms and fight.

Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Of course I thought about it!! Listen. THEIR country was attacked THEY are deffending it. So WHAT are THEY guilty of. THOSE that INVADED are the guilty ones - stands to reason.

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Of course I thought about it!! Listen. THEIR country was attacked THEY are deffending it. So WHAT are THEY guilty of. THOSE that INVADED are the guilty ones - stands to reason.

Who are THEY? The South Ossetians who were invaded by the Georgians or the Georgians who were invaded by the Russians? Nothing simple about it really.

[shropshire 0]

This was an Iraq side bar ..... for a change

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar
>fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I
>as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Let's use a more apt example.

Someone comes into your house and points a gun at your wife. You pull out your gun, shoot at him and miss. He runs off. What are you guilty of? How much time should you spend in jail?

And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how? A large majority of the innocents in question are shooting at us in the streets, not their homes. This is long after the initial invasion and we're still being shot at by what shropshire is referring to as "innocents." Pay no mind to the fact that many of those citizens of Iraq that you think despised us cheered us with our removal of a dictator that was willing to kill off thousands of his own countrymen and women. Ignore the fact that those same "innocents" shoot at their own Iraqi military forces. The same forces we trained to assist them in getting them more skilled and able to maintain their own country.

I just entered a job field that's sole purpose is to protect life and property, not destroy it. However, we're among the most targeted out there.

More info on what I do here... C L I C K Y

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Well, if one invades anothers country of course they are going to shoot at you. That does not make them any less innocent.

Hmmm... lets think about this. They shoot, but that doesn't make them less innocent??? Do you think before you reply? Last time I checked, you become a combatant once you take up arms and fight.

Let me relate this a little better for you. If you're watching me in a bar fight, I've got no cause to hit you. You hit me, it's on between you and I as well. Innocents don't fight. It's that simple.

Of course I thought about it!! Listen. THEIR country was attacked THEY are deffending it. So WHAT are THEY guilty of. THOSE that INVADED are the guilty ones - stands to reason.

Read my above post to billvon. The reply responds to this as well.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how?

You are in someone else's home. Imagine your response to armed Chinese soldiers walking down your street, breaking into (and sometimes destroying) people's houses, preparing to break into yours.

[DougH 270]

Quote

>And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how?

You are in someone else's home. Imagine your response to armed Chinese soldiers walking down your street, breaking into (and sometimes destroying) people's houses, preparing to break into yours.

I like this logic, UN peace keeping units should be fired at on a daily basis, and it would be jusitified.

I don't know why we are arguing this point any way. It doesn't matter what you call them as long as them end up with a large diameter smoking hole in their chest after firing on US soldiers.

"The restraining order says you're only allowed to touch me in freefall"
=P

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>And us walking down the street and being shot at is relative to that how?

You are in someone else's home. Imagine your response to armed Chinese soldiers walking down your street, breaking into (and sometimes destroying) people's houses, preparing to break into yours.

One, I'm in the military. That's my job. To ensure it doesn't happen. Two, we don't have a dictator. Our leader is elected, regardless of your political standing. Three, our president isn't killing civillians that oppose him in his own country.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>One, I'm in the military. That's my job. To ensure it doesn't happen.

But by your own words, "innocents don't fight." So we're not the innocents you make us out to be.

>Two, we don't have a dictator. Our leader is elected, regardless of your
>political standing. Three, our president isn't killing civillians that oppose
>him in his own country.

Well, all that applies to Russia, as well.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>One, I'm in the military. That's my job. To ensure it doesn't happen.

But by your own words, "innocents don't fight." So we're not the innocents you make us out to be.

>Two, we don't have a dictator. Our leader is elected, regardless of your
>political standing. Three, our president isn't killing civillians that oppose
>him in his own country.

Well, all that applies to Russia, as well.

I never said I was an innocent. I joined removing me from a list of innocents. I choose to enlist because that keeps someone else at home and away from the possibility of death. That someone might be married and/or have kids. I'm not and don't. My death would hit home to my family, but it wouldn't affect the upbringing of children or the wellbeing of a spouse. My father has never been in the military. Would he fight if someone invaded? Yes. Would he be an innocent in doing so? No. He took up arms. It's that simple.

Again, someone invading the United States would be due to other stimuli than a dictator destroying his own people and disregarding sanctions he has agreed to.

In regards to Russia, my input began with Shropshire's tangent, which was solely related to Iraq. It doesn't apply to Russia, and I made no comment in regards to Russia. My comments were solely enveloping his statements about Iraq.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[Froggy 0]

Quote

Who are THEY? The South Ossetians who were invaded by the Georgians or the Georgians who were invaded by the Russians? Nothing simple about it really.

Yes, it IS quite simple, actually... Georgia attacked the Ossetians, who defended themselves. At the same time Georgia directly attacked Russian peacekeeping forces in Tshinvali (10 to 15 people were killed in the first night attack). Russia defended their own forces AND Ossetians, most of which are Russian citizens. What other reaction from Russia would you expect? BTW, those forces have been operating there under UN decree since 1992.

At least, BBC changed their tune from "Russia attacked Georgia" to "Russia responded to Georgian military action". But they are still feeding the world with complete BS -- how convenient it is to quote Putin, and completely remove the key part of the quote, changing its meaning... Good job, motherf@ckers!

--------------
We were not born to fly. And all we can do is to try not to fall...

[Andrewwhyte 1]

Quote

Quote

Who are THEY? The South Ossetians who were invaded by the Georgians or the Georgians who were invaded by the Russians? Nothing simple about it really.

Yes, it IS quite simple, actually... Georgia attacked the Ossetians, who defended themselves. At the same time Georgia directly attacked Russian peacekeeping forces in Tshinvali (10 to 15 people were killed in the first night attack). Russia defended their own forces AND Ossetians, most of which are Russian citizens. What other reaction from Russia would you expect? BTW, those forces have been operating there under UN decree since 1992.

At least, BBC changed their tune from "Russia attacked Georgia" to "Russia responded to Georgian military action". But they are still feeding the world with complete BS -- how convenient it is to quote Putin, and completely remove the key part of the quote, changing its meaning... Good job, motherf@ckers!

If the Ossetians are Russian citizens why are they living in Georgia and fomenting an independence movement? Sounds like invaders to me.

[billvon 2,470]

>In regards to Russia, my input began with Shropshire's tangent, which
>was solely related to Iraq. It doesn't apply to Russia, and I made no
>comment in regards to Russia. My comments were solely enveloping his
>statements about Iraq.

Sorry, I assumed that since you were posting in a thread about Russia that your comments had something to do with Russia.

But in any case, same basic principles apply. Either it's OK to invade to "protect civilians" "end abuses" "stop the violence" or it's not.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>In regards to Russia, my input began with Shropshire's tangent, which
>was solely related to Iraq. It doesn't apply to Russia, and I made no
>comment in regards to Russia. My comments were solely enveloping his
>statements about Iraq.

Sorry, I assumed that since you were posting in a thread about Russia that your comments had something to do with Russia.

But in any case, same basic principles apply. Either it's OK to invade to "protect civilians" "end abuses" "stop the violence" or it's not.

Again, we were being cheered upon arriving into Baghdad. I do feel it's ok to invade for such a reason. That's provided that said invaders put effort into and intend to return it to a soverign nation and not take it over. I don't know much about the history of Georgia and their history with Russia. It does however, sound as though they're taking the same approach that we took with Kosovo, from what information I've been able to attain from the plethora of resources I've had availability to. Again, I don't know much about that situation, so I'm not going to dictate a definate right or wrong.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>Again, we were being cheered upon arriving into Baghdad.

And people cheered when the Russian troops arrived. After all, evil separatists were shelling villages in South Ossetia (an area made up mainly of Russians) and the Russians said they were there to protect them; it was a "peacekeeping operation to protect its citizens."

That doesn't make it right.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Again, we were being cheered upon arriving into Baghdad.

And people cheered when the Russian troops arrived. After all, evil separatists were shelling villages in South Ossetia (an area made up mainly of Russians) and the Russians said they were there to protect them; it was a "peacekeeping operation to protect its citizens."

That doesn't make it right.

I already said I don't know much about the history of the area. I know a lot more about what went on in Iraq. Tell me this... do you feel it's right at any point in time for another country to step in and aid another country in a similar situation or should every nation mind their own business and not concern themselves with the suffering of other countries, regarless of fault or instigation? How many have to die or suffer before it's deemed a valid effort? Explain your standpoint. Should only the UN be the intruding effort for stabilization? Go more in depth on your view on how the world should work.

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>Tell me this... do you feel it's right at any point in time for another
>country to step in and aid another country in a similar situation or should
>every nation mind their own business and not concern themselves with the
>suffering of other countries, regarless of fault or instigation?

Yes. When we are attacked.

>Explain your standpoint.

Basically, we are responsible for ourselves, not others.

John Quincy Adams put it far better than I could:
===========
America, in the assembly of nations, since her admission among them, has invariably, though often fruitlessly, held forth to them the hand of honest friendship, of equal freedom, of generous reciprocity. . . Wherever the standard of freedom and Independence has been or shall be unfurled, there will her heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all. She is the champion and vindicator only of her own. She will commend the general cause by the countenance of her voice, and the benignant sympathy of her example. She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. . . .She might become the dictatress of the world; she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit. Her glory is not dominion, but liberty. Her march is the march of the mind.
============

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Tell me this... do you feel it's right at any point in time for another
>country to step in and aid another country in a similar situation or should
>every nation mind their own business and not concern themselves with the
>suffering of other countries, regarless of fault or instigation?

Yes. When we are attacked.

>Explain your standpoint.

Basically, we are responsible for ourselves, not others.

When we are attacked is outside of my inquiry. Are you saying that as long as we are not attacked in any way, the rest of the world could go into nuclear war and you wouldn't care because it doesn't involve you? Are you saying that governments could annihilate their own people to maintain power, political views, or financial wellbeing?

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.

[billvon 2,470]

>Are you saying that as long as we are not attacked in any way, the
>rest of the world could go into nuclear war . . .

No, because that would be an attack on the US. You cannot use nuclear weapons on Tijuana without taking out Chula Vista.

But let's take a limited example. Pakistan launches an all-out attack on Indian forces in Kashmir. India responds with a single nuclear attack on Gilgit. What is our best response?

1) Do everything we could to stop the conflict via diplomatic and UN channels.
2) Bomb India.

>Are you saying that governments could annihilate their own people
>to maintain power, political views, or financial wellbeing?

Absolutely not - no more than your neighbor can abuse his wife. But if you go over there and kill the both of them to end the abuse, you go to jail for a long time. Even if you meant to only kill him.

[gonzalesna 0]

Quote

>Are you saying that governments could annihilate their own people
>to maintain power, political views, or financial wellbeing?

Absolutely not - no more than your neighbor can abuse his wife. But if you go over there and kill the both of them to end the abuse, you go to jail for a long time. Even if you meant to only kill him.

So then at what point is it justified to become involved? In that situation, there are police to relsove the situation... by force if needed. So who's job is it to resolve things, by force if needed?

Some people refrain from beating a dead horse. Personally, I find a myriad of entertainment value when beating it until it becomes a horse-smoothie.