QueenZone discussion #1121416

Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I understand that Georgia became independant of Russia, then Georgia wanted to own the other bit, and the other bit got pissed off and Russia sided with the other bit and bombs were thrown.

Serry... wrote: There's a fair point in this, Cas, but Russian troops were there for the last 15 years - what kind of provocation do you mean? Georgian troops two days ago were there for 13 times bigger than Russians, though by international agreements there can't be any Georgian troops at all in this region. Being Russian myself I can tell you for sure that your version about annexation of Abchazia and SO is funny, but nothing more. Even hardcore Russian nationalists would never dream about it. And by the way there are not so many ethnic Russians, there are many citizens of Russia, but they're Ossetians. Though we've used that all nations who live in Russia are Russians for Western minds...

Serry... wrote:

Freya is quietly judging you. wrote: I understand that Georgia became independant of Russia, then Georgia wanted to own the other bit, and the other bit got pissed off and Russia sided with the other bit and bombs were thrown.

Georgia became independant of Soviet Union, not of Russia. Stop confusing Russia and USSR, Georgia was part of USSR as well as Russia with the same rights.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: Whether Russia likes it or not, these countries (Georgia and all other former USSR countries) are independent. They are sovereign, and free to associate with whomever they want.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: OK, now I have to sound like a complete a total feminist, but why does this seem like simply a testosterone contest? Whether Russia likes it or not, these countries (Georgia and all other former USSR countries) are independent. They are sovereign, and free to associate with whomever they want. If they want to be members of NATO, or the UN, or any other organization like that, they have the perfect right to. Joining something doesn't make you a threat to anything. I understand that Putin, who I agree with Caspar is still in control, may still be desiring some kind of empiristic-desire to "re-create glory". Tough crap. Those days are over, as the US is quickly finding out in the Middle East, just as Iran will if they keep pushing the same line. And from the very limited amount of information I've seen on this, it doesn't sound like Georgia is innocent either. When it becomes obvious that posturing is beginning within diplomatic negotiations, continuing to push to aggression has one result: Aggression. It's not a damn poker game. It's war, and innocent people die. So you go to war for a week to prove your point and then call for a cease fire. That's great. And what about all of the people who died? They are still dead.

Serry... wrote: "We see Putin hand-picking his successor and creating a new title for himself because he's term limited out of office." He's Prime Minister, there's nothing new in this title. And what's wrong that he's still 'in charge'? I've heard this arguement three times in this thread, what's the problem? That's okay for Mr Roosevelt to be the President for four terms, but no one else can be 'Roosevelt' for their countries? I know that weak Russia with Yeltsin was funny for the rest of the world, but we wanted something else for our country and Mr Putin gave us that 'something else'. You have to live here to see the changes. It seems like only Cuba and Panama are brave enough to say that Georgian aggression towards Ossetia wasn't right, other countries still discuss about how evil Russians are. Toy given to the kids, kids are happy.

Ms. Rebel wrote: I hope it ends as soon as possible. =(

It's not in the interest of Europe to create new tensions with Russia.

YourValentine wrote: 1. presumed dioxine poisoning of 2004 Ukraine election candidate Viktor Yushchenko: it was never proven he was poisoned, in fact his doctor in Vienna had severe doubts that there was any poisoning, he was fired from his job. There was a lot of evidence that he may have been poisoned but it was never proven that Russia was behind it. Yushchenko himselef always blamed it on his Ukranian opponents 2. the murder of Alexander Litvinenko in London: Putin did deny that the Russian secret service was involved. In fact he said that if the Russian secret service had killed Litvinenko, nobody would have noticed it(!)

YourValentine wrote: Please read my message in context and quote it completely. I was answering masterhistorygirl who said that Putin did not even attempt to deny Russian involvement in the Litvinenko murder. The truth is that Putin did deny it on a press conference broadcasted on TV. He said that if the Russian secret service had been involved in the murder, nobody would have found any traces of the crime. Please notice that this was very cynical to say but maybe it was even true. You may know that the British police thinks they know the killer and asked Russia to extradite him which Russia denied - the Russian law does not allow to extradite a Russian citizen to another country (same in many other countries, btw). Russia asked England for evidence and proof and offered to put the person on trial themselves but England never sent anything. It would have been a chance to see if Russia is serious about law and international cooperation. If Russia was not involved in the murder we should be very worried about terrorists who have access to pollonium and the means to poison someone - a threat that surpasses any other terrorist threats we know about. Strangely, this was never much an issue in the media or in political debates, although our governments usually grab any chance to keep us frightened. As to the provocation in Georgia/Russia: we should keep an open mind and not let us drag into this cold war attitude again. After the "iron curtain" fell, there was a very promising global wish to disarm and aim at peaceful cooperation between the former two camps. We should not turn around this development and start threatening Russia with new weapon systems in countries who are former Russian allies and we should not expand the NATO to a neighbour state of Russia. We should read about the Cuban missiles crisis in the 60s and learn how America responded when the USSR tried to install missiles in Cuba. Russia has the same right to ensure their own safety as the USA, don't they?

YourValentine wrote: Of course it's all about the oil and gas pipelines, otherwise the West would not give a damn about Georgia

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: 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.

ThomasQuinn wrote: That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly.

YourValentine wrote: 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.

YourValentine wrote: 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.

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: That missile shield consists of missile launch facilities, mostly.

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!

YourValentine wrote: 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.

ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

The Mir@cle wrote: 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.

Micrówave wrote:

ThomasQuinn wrote: 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.

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.

That's the whole point; they killed dozens of civilians when they fell on residential quarters in Israel during the first Gulf War.

If you're going to be an obnoxious ass, please do so *after* comprehending the subject matter.

That's never stopped you before.

Cheap and lame. I say no more.

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.

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.

YourValentine wrote: "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.

YourValentine wrote: 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?

ThomasQuinn wrote: @ 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.

The Mir@cle wrote: It's more that you're saying that we (as being the Western countries) give Russia reasons to stay in Georgia for a few more days. But maybe Russia just doesn't want to leave? I'm not sure what's the right thing to do in this case. You can be soft to Russia, partly give them what you want and stay friends for a bit more. But don't you give them green light to gain more power then? That's how Hitler got big. Bit by bit he started to gain power... and the rest saw it and just watched him building a super army. Don't get me wrong. It's not my intention to compare Medvedev with Hitler, but this might be the moment to tell him what he can and what he can't do. Invading another country and kill thousands of people is something that you can't just let happen I think. You see the cold war rhetoric returning at alarming speed?

The Mir@cle wrote: And we shouldn't give them too much space I think. Otherwise you give them a finger, and they take a whole hand.

YourValentine wrote:

The Mir@cle wrote: And we shouldn't give them too much space I think. Otherwise you give them a finger, and they take a whole hand.

That's exactly the arrogance that drives me up the wall. You did not even take a second to think about what I wrote in my previous posts. It's not YOU who decides how Russia copes with the WW2 trauma, you don't have the slightest idea what the country went through and it's not YOU who decides if they have a right to feel threatened if the NATO moves into their hostile neighbour country.

YourValentine wrote: Yes, thank God.. whoever that may be. But since we get so personal, I want to ask you a question and please give me an honest answer or none at all: Would you, Martijn, volunteer in the NATO forces as a combat soldier to fight in Georgia against the Russians if the conflict should become "hot" ?

YourValentine wrote: Absolutely. Although I think avoiding a cold war is not achieved with "power language", you know. How exactly are you "not giving Russia too much space" if not by threats and violence?

The Mir@cle wrote: So the source is a Russian site... ;-)

YourValentine wrote: Why does Putin want a war? This war would not be in another part of the world, it would be in Russia. Why would he want that?

Yara wrote: And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece.

Microwave wrote:

Yara wrote: And once again, Russia rules the roost, Russia calls the shots these days, Russia stands for respect for the law whereas Washington flouts it, Russia stands for peace whereas Washington stands for war, Russia defends debate, dialogue and disscussion while Washington favours antagonism, arrogance, bullying, belligerence, back-stabbing, chauvinism and skulduggery as its diplomatic tools, and Condoleeza Rice as its mouthpiece.

Well, you thrown me. I thought you had something, earlier, Yara, but you seem to be all about name calling. Instead of fighting back, though, I think it's time you were clued in on something. Russia never ruled the roost. And now the facts have come out about the Cold War, we all know that Russia really wasn't in a race at all. Nothing worked in Russia. Not a lot really does today. And if you've forgotten the Genocide scoreboard, it still has Stalin way ahead of any US President... combined. We're talking about the Hitler class. I noticed you left him out of your little tirade. Plus remember your old way of getting rid of Tsars? Bullets. Even the kids. Nice. And if Russia stands for piece, how come all the Nuclear Plants in Iran and North Korea have "C.C.C.P." written on them somewhere? There's always two sides to propaganda.

The Mir@cle wrote: It's known that the Russian government still controll all the media, so like you said.. it's propaganda.

YourValentine wrote: Maggie - the war already is in Russia's back yard. Any escalation would mean WW3. It was Russians who were killed first, nobody can debate that fact away. It's up to the NATO not to let this escalate any further and to be honest: seeing Sakaaschwili on CNN yesterday in front of the Georgian and US flags, framed by high ranking US miltary speaking English and not his own language does not add much to ease any fear in Russia and beyond. After all, the record of the Bush administration is not that of a government that handles a crisis with diplomacy and caution. I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership. About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.

YourValentine wrote: Maggie - the war already is in Russia's back yard. Any escalation would mean WW3. It was Russians who were killed first, nobody can debate that fact away. It's up to the NATO not to let this escalate any further and to be honest: seeing Sakaaschwili on CNN yesterday in front of the Georgian and US flags, framed by high ranking US miltary speaking English and not his own language does not add much to ease any fear in Russia and beyond. After all, the record of the Bush administration is not that of a government that handles a crisis with diplomacy and caution. I am under no illusion about the disrespect of individual human life in Russia (see Chernobyl, the Kursk) but Putin is not a frantic lunatic. This is not Korea, Vietnam, Iraq, Afghanistan or another non-nuclear country far away where you can contain the war and your economy makes a huge profit. If this war escalates Russia might end up being a nuclear desert and nobody can be so blind and want that for their own country. Last time they had a war it did not help the economy, did it? Gorbachev pulled the rip cord and withdrew from Afghanistan when people in Russia started to queue for food. It is also not necessary to frighten the own population because the overwhelming majority of Russian people is okay with their leadership. About the unhappy transition: that is not a reason for war 20 years after the USSR dissolved. Let's not forget that Russia allowed their satellite states to become independent peacefully (Falklands anybody?). They did not argue against former Warsaw Pact states becoming NATO members, they did not object when Germmany re-united (last time they had a non-aggression pact with Germany they lost 10 million people). Russia did a lot for the peaceful transition and Europe ows them some credit. It's time to give them some breathing space - if South Ossetia is the border we should not push Russia across it would be suicidal to push all the same.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants. You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.

YourValentine wrote:

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: I never said Putin was a raving lunatic; you don't have to be. Those people aren't much of a threat anyway because they can't get anyone on their side (see: The President of Iran). But Putin is cunning and manipulative, and he knows what he wants. You are right when you say that Russia let all of the sattlite states go independently. But not everyone was happy about that, you can't deny it. Popular opinion in Russia at the time was that it was the only option, since they had to survive themselves and the economy was in shambles. They didn't have the money to fight on anymore. But no one forgot the glory of the USSR days before things went downhill (remembering that people generally only remember the good about their countries, not the bad). There are still a lot of Russians who wouldn't mind going back to that now that they are in a position to, damn what NATO or the UN or anyone else says. They know the UN won't send troops; the UN didn't send troops into the US when we did the same thing with Iraq. They know that the US won't send troops because we can't; our military is over-stretched as it is.

It's interesting how different people evaluate the role of recent European history in this discussion. No matter how many people in the USSR felt about it: Gorbachev believed in peace, he reached out to the world, gave up a lot of dominance and power and what did Russia get in return?

You call Ahmadinejad a lunatic - why is that?

Because he wants to enrich Uranium to run Iranian nuclear powerplants?

Iran never attacked their neighbours

but the USA claims they need a missile shield in the middle of Europe to protect themselves against Iran - how lunatic is that?

How many nations have to pay for the paranoia of the USA and how many countries have to live under the threat of a nuclear strike for that?

Please look at a map of Iran, their neighbours are: Iraq - under American occupation, Turkey - NATO ally, Afghanistan - under US and NATO occupation, Saudi-Arabia - ally with US troops stationed in the country, Pakistan - ally of the USA, owns nuclear weapons.

Please consider for a moment that you would have to live under such a massive threat, how many missile shields would the USA have to set up to meet such a threat and how many pre-emptive strikes would they have to launch to feel safe? The anti-missile installations in Poland and Czech Republic are a provocation for Russia, too.

Please understand that I do not mean this in any way personal, my own government froze in Iranian assets to put pressure on them to stop their nuclear programme and the EU and NATO allies follow the USA much too far in their strive for total world dominance. I know that you are no not happy with the policy of your country, either. It's not easy for you and me to look through all the propaganda we are fed each day.

MasterHistoryGirl wrote: @ Barb, I know it's nothing personal. :-) Believe me, I know that we lost our moral authority to be able to say anything about the invasion of other countries LONG ago...which assumes we ever had the authority in the first place. I personally LOVE watching Condi Rice and the US ambassador to the UN doing the verbal dance of trying to express disgust with Russia in ways that they won't think will directly lead back to our unjustified invasion of Iraq. It's funny to watch the US ambassador to the UN squirm under the pressure, because he's smart enough to know that it's crap.

Condi Rice, on the other hand, disturbs me because she isn't squirming when she says it. That's either a sign that she's a tremendous actress or that she has no moral qualms about it because she sees Iraq as a seperate thing. If that's the case...DANGER!"

And you are right about most Americans. It is true that 3/4 of us dislike Bush policy, but 3/4 of Americans also still believe that "We saved Europe's ass in World War II. If it wasn't for us the French would be speaking German! Since we had to come in and clean up your mess for you over there, that means WE are the authority and you should respect us as such." This goes from politicians to the average man on the street; several members of my family think like this. It disturbs me that they think this way (it comes mostly from the way WWII is taught in schools here in America)

but if the majority feel this way, it shapes our foreign policy. You and I both know it's total crap. But you can't change the opinion of all of society overnight.

I call the President of Iran a raving lunatic because I feel that he is one. It goes far beyond his statements of "There are no gays in Iran, we do not have this in our country" at the University of Columbia last year and then he couldn't understand why we were laughing at him. That is just being sadly naive.

I call him a lunatic because most of his own country thinks he is. It's common knowledge that the Shahs run Iran, and that the President is just a figure head puppet for them.

But it's gotten to the point where he's been so outspoken about the West in general (and the US in particular) that the Shahs have clamped down on him, telling him he can't say certain things and what not.

If it's gotten to the point where the people pulling the strings are clamping down on what their puppet says, there is a problem.

The policy of the Shah's towards the West has always been extremely hostile. But if they are pulling back on his rhetoric because they are scared of what he will bring on the country...that means he's in it deeper than they are. It has nothing to do with nuclear weapons or enriching uranium.

ThomasQuinn wrote: Your points are all valid and true; I was merely pointing to unavoidable snags that trouble them. There are a number of currents flowing at the same time, as there always are. When, to the eyes of the world, one war is unfolding, it may actually be dozens of little war disguised as one. As for the quotes: 1) click the quotes icon on the post you wish to reply to 2) You will find the terms "[", "QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "/QUOTENAME", "]" | "[", "QUOTE" "]" | "[", "/QUOTE", "]" (all written together, but if I typed that here, it'd show up as a quotes dialogue box, not as text) in the text. 3) These are make-up tags. QUOTENAME marks the start of the posters name, and will show up as a box saying "[name of original poster] wrote:", where the name of the poster is written between "QUOTENAME" and "/QUOTENAME", the latter of which marks the end of the tag. 4) QUOTE and /QUOTE mark the beginning and end of the text that is to be quoted. 5) So, in short, by inserting the tags QUOTE and /QUOTE into the text, you create quote boxes. Just don't forget that there is already a QUOTE at the beginning and a /QUOTE at the end of the text.

YourValentine wrote: Is Craig a democrat, could you please place a link that shows this? All I found was that he was employed by President Reagan who was a Republican. Here is some info about his publictaions and university work but no info about him being a Democrat.

Poo again wrote: I've come to the conclusion that Russia is right. If the Americans can have an independent Kosovo, then Russia has every right to see their allies in the breakaway republics independent. Upon hearing that Western leaders called the declarations of independence "uncacceptable" and so on, I was truly enraged. How was Kosovo "acceptable"?

Poo again wrote: This whole thing is just Russia getting back at the EU and the USA for Kosovo.