Russia invades Georgia

[CapelDodger]

3- I don't know, lost family there, maybe they thought they could recreate the Korean solution?

Apparently not.

Maybe we should ask a south Korean

About Indo-China? Why?

... or some of the Vietnamese that got out before and after the country fell.

We could also ask the Vietnamese that Vietnam fell to, when the French and the US finally gave up on it.

Also remind us who helped the north with military aid clean hands an all.

Remember who paid for the war, and did a lot of the fighting? Against Vietnamese throughout the country - not just in the north.

4- This just brings me back to Russia being held to a different standard.

I can't see it myself. The Russians no more did the world a favour in Georgia than the US did in Panama or Grenada.

After all who built the Berlin wall, and killed so many people seeking freedom? No big deal Russia is back lets cheer!

I have to say, you do seem pleased yourself. Did you miss them after the Wall fell and the Evil Empire just broke up and melted away like Arctic sea-ice? I can see how that might leave a hole in some people's lives.

 

[CapelDodger]

And so the "Russia Invades Georgia" news-item fades away. Another nine-day wonder, just as I expected.

 

[gtc]

It was meant to be discouraging.

It made you sound like a prat.

I get irritated by people who want to make everything about Israel.

That's nice. When you meet someone like that, maybe you can mention it to them.

"Russia Invades Georgia", that's the thread title. No mention of Israel.

That's nice. There is also no mention of Korea, France, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Belgium, Holland, Panama or Venezeula to mention just some of the countries that have been discussed in this thread.

I made no reference to boycotts.

Never said you did.

Someone (mr rosewater, I think) presented Russian trade with Latin America as evidence that it's trying to establish a strategic influence there. I suggested that it isn't.

Indeed. You implied that who a country wants to trade military equipment with is no one else's concern. 'that's just business' is what you said. Which is why I asked my question. I wanted to know if hold that view consistently or if you don't hold that view, what you meant to say.

Then you went off about Israel and boycotts, for whatever reason you've got. Whatever the problem, it's yours, not mine. I have enough on my plate already, thanks.

Well thanks for letting us know that you have many problems. I hope you get them sorted out.



To refresh your memory, this is the post that I was referrring to:

And this,

http://uk.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUKL2150399620080721

MOSCOW (Reuters) - Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez will seek to buy Russian diesel submarines, mobile missile systems and tanks, this week during a trip aimed at boosting trade, Russian media reported on Monday.


July 21, 2008

It's aimed at boosting trade; is there something wrong with that? Cannot Russia trade with whom it wants? If the Russians have weapons to offer and people want to buy them, that's just business.

 

[Klimax]

Well, mine was a reply to a problem that you started quite few posts ago.
If you do not want to continue, OK, let` s go back to the thread

Only small correction.I was at that time on topic as I was discussing "false flag op" in Russia-Georgie conflict and why it had to be dismissed as godwinning thread,when you joined and we started OT.(I backtraced our exchange)

 

[CapelDodger]

It made you sound like a prat.

The impression I make on you is the least of my concerns.

That's nice. When you meet someone like that, maybe you can mention it to them.

If you didn't gratuitously introduce Israel you wouldn't appear to be such a person. Just some well-meant advice.

That's nice. There is also no mention of Korea, France, Vietnam, Cuba, China, Belgium, Holland, Panama or Venezeula to mention just some of the countries that have been discussed in this thread.

mr rosewater (god bless 'im) and I were discussing Russia's and Latin America because he brought it up with reference to Russia's geopolitical ambitions. A tenuous link to "Russia Invades Georgia", but a link nonetheless.

Never said you did.

So why bring it up, and in such a demanding tone?

Indeed. You implied that who a country wants to trade military equipment with is no one else's concern. 'that's just business' is what you said. Which is why I asked my question. I wanted to know if hold that view consistently or if you don't hold that view, what you meant to say.

I do hold that view. It's just business.

It's mr rosewater who is faced with a conundrum. If Russian arms-sales appear to him to have sinister intent then presumably all arms-sales are similarly sinister. Unless he thinks there's something special about Russia; if he does he can say so.

Well thanks for letting us know that you have many problems. I hope you get them sorted out.



To refresh your memory, this is the post that I was referrring to:

I remember the exchange perfectly well. What's your problem with it? Is there not enough Israel in there for you?

 

[SDC]

And so the "Russia Invades Georgia" news-item fades away. Another nine-day wonder, just as I expected.

Maybe in the Anglophone press but not in the Russian or Polish press. Haven't checked German lately, and isn't the Euro mission led by Sarkozy? So the French are probably covering it.

I ought to check the Ukrainian press as well but if the Russians and Poles are concerned, they usually are too.

Hey, don't ask me about the Armenians. There are linguistic limits. And they're talking with the Turks, which has to be some kind of phenom.

ETA I'm not really being sarcastic, though I am always puzzled when posters talk as though they think Anglophone sources -- whether US, UK, Canadian, Australian, or any other -- are all that matters.

 

[gtc]

The impression I make on you is the least of my concerns.

Clearly.

If you didn't gratuitously introduce Israel you wouldn't appear to be such a person. Just some well-meant advice.

What is your problem with discussion of Israel? You don't suggest that discussion of any of those other countries mentioned in this thread is 'gratuitous' or should be off-limits. Your attitude is very odd, to say the least.

I remember the exchange perfectly well. What's your problem with it? Is there not enough Israel in there for you?

I thought it might refresh your memory, if you needed it. Your questions are bizarre, to say the least.

 

[CapelDodger]

Maybe in the Anglophone press but not in the Russian or Polish press. Haven't checked German lately, and isn't the Euro mission led by Sarkozy? So the French are probably covering it.

I ought to check the Ukrainian press as well but if the Russians and Poles are concerned, they usually are too.

Hey, don't ask me about the Armenians. There are linguistic limits. And they're talking with the Turks, which has to be some kind of phenom.

ETA I'm not really being sarcastic, though I am always puzzled when posters talk as though they think Anglophone sources -- whether US, UK, Canadian, Australian, or any other -- are all that matters.

I'm afraid I'm guilty of even worse parochialism - I was thinking of this thread and this Forum. Much hyperventilation about Russian intentions and a New Cold War followed by a gradual loss of interest as nothing much happens. No forced regime-change in Georgia, no ultimata issued to Ukraine and Latvia, nothing interesting at all.

The Ukrainian political scene is in some turmoil for entirely separate reasons. That's been brewing since the last political turmoil. Poland seems to have avoided mass panic despite the "Russia Targets Poland" hysteria in the anglophone press. The French press is probably downplaying Sarkozy's role because they don't much like him, they don't much like the new-look EU, and Sarkozy isn't representing France he's representing the EU.

Turkey and Armenia are talking because there's a football match coming up, which is a bomb that needs defusing. Really. In some parts of the world football is war by other means; the trick is to keep it that way.

 

[CapelDodger]

What is your problem with discussion of Israel?

If I was here to discuss Israel I've any number of threads to do it on. I'm not. I'm here to discuss the March Through Georgia (the modern one, not Sherman's). If you have a problem with that it is your problem. Not mine.

You don't suggest that discussion of any of those other countries mentioned in this thread is 'gratuitous' or should be off-limits. Your attitude is very odd, to say the least.

Perhaps to you. I followed mr rosewater into that territory, then you jumped into the conversation with "Israel "and "boycotts" without even the shadow of a tenuous link.

Why would I not treat you differently? You're lucky I'm talking to you at all. Come to think of it, "lucky" isn't necessarily the right word ...

I thought it might refresh your memory, if you needed it. Your questions are bizarre, to say the least.

Your question was bizarre. Remember it? The one you broke into a conversation with, for no apparent reason? I suggest you sort your own demons out before you start looking for them in others.

 

[Darth Rotor]

Looking back over those two decades, it was the disengagement of the US from such places as El Salvador that enabled democracy to progress. It disabled the autocracies because they were no longer of geopolitical signficance, in US eyes. The US contributed by no longer preventing democratic progress.

Uh, no. I don't think you grasp what the policy aim was in the first place. The whole point of constructive engagement there was to nurture along reform from far right to something less odious. It took a lot of time, and any number of right wing death squads acting out in contravention to that long term aim before a self sustaining, reformed system was in place.

Try not looking through a cardboard tube, eh?

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Nice.

Why does it appear to be such a touchy subject?

If you do support boycotts against Israel (or any country for that matter) then you don't think that who a nation trades with is their business alone.

Can you tell me on what basis an Arab or other nation hasn't the right to boycott Israel? That is within their right as sovereign nations to trade with whom they like, or not.

Why do you have a problem with that? Is your profit at risk?

DR

 

[gtc]

Can you tell me on what basis an Arab or other nation hasn't the right to boycott Israel? That is within their right as sovereign nations to trade with whom they like, or not.

Why do you have a problem with that? Is your profit at risk?

DR

You misunderstand me. CapelDodger is suggesting that there should be no cause for concern about whom Russia chooses to trade with and that trade in military goods is a matter only between the two nations who choose to trade.

I brought up Israel as I was interested to know whether he applied that logic to all nations or only nations that he appears to support.

Following this I have discovered that CapelDodger is prepared to see any country mentioned in this thread, except one. Perhaps, like the Iranian government, I should have referred to the 'zionist regime'.

 

[SDC]

Interesting article about possible unintended eventual consequences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/world/europe/10separatists.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Basically, the Russian fed's recognition of So. Ossetia and Abkhazia has raised eyebrows in regions, some of them in the heart of the country (Tatarstan, Bashkorstan), where there have been at least autonomist movements.

 

[CapelDodger]

You misunderstand me. CapelDodger is suggesting that there should be no cause for concern about whom Russia chooses to trade with and that trade in military goods is a matter only between the two nations who choose to trade.

I was inviting mr rosewater to suggest (and argue) something different.

I brought up Israel as I was interested to know whether he applied that logic to all nations or only nations that he appears to support.

I don't support any nations, I simply observe.

Following this I have discovered that CapelDodger is prepared to see any country mentioned in this thread, except one. Perhaps, like the Iranian government, I should have referred to the 'zionist regime'.

What you think you've discovered is not, in fact, the case. If you want to suggest that Israel selling arms to Georgia implies some geopolitical intent on the part of Israel (as mr rosewater claimed regarding Russian arms-sales in Latin America) fire away and I'll discuss it with you.

 

[CapelDodger]

Uh, no. I don't think you grasp what the policy aim was in the first place. The whole point of constructive engagement there was to nurture along reform from far right to something less odious. It took a lot of time, and any number of right wing death squads acting out in contravention to that long term aim before a self sustaining, reformed system was in place.

The death-squads didn't spring up out of nowhere, they were tools of governments that the US supported militarily, financially, and politically. They were part of the Free World, after all, and needed protection from their commie-influenced masses. Negroponte may be an iconic figure, but not as a bleeding-heart liberal. It was Realpolitik in those days, before the Fall of the Wall.

Try not looking through a cardboard tube, eh?

DR

I don't think it's coincidence that the democracies emerging after the Fall of the Wall are not US-friendly. The US took its eye off the ball, and look what happened. Not (obviously) because of Moscow Gold but because that's what would inevitably happen. US influence in Latin America has always operated through the local Spanish elites that rebelled against metropolitan Spanish control in the 1820's, in favour of their own control.

Democracy brings in the natives, and they have always had overwhelming numbers. Which is why US support for Latin American democracy has always been less than half-hearted.

 

[CapelDodger]

Interesting article about possible unintended eventual consequences. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/10/world/europe/10separatists.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

Basically, the Russian fed's recognition of So. Ossetia and Abkhazia has raised eyebrows in regions, some of them in the heart of the country (Tatarstan, Bashkorstan), where there have been at least autonomist movements.

Only time will tell, but I think Tatarstan and Bashkortostan are having their fifteen minutes of fame right now. Unlike the Ossetians and Abkhazians they don't have powerful friends next door. Their best chance is to make it an Islam thing, and that's still not much of a chance. Just look what's happened to the Chechens.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Only a braindead would be surprised by the Russian defense of the two provinces of Georgia.

My oppion is that we give the two provinces to Russia, and simultanously, give the remaining Georgia NATO status.

 

[SDC]

Don't look now, but over in the US Presidential election area, they are hashing out soon-to-be President Palin's statements about war with Russia over Georgia. So all the arguments over here may be moot.

I am for sure going to read some Russian papers online tomorrow. This should be good. Chelovek volk cheloveku, don't you know. Man is wolf to man.

 

[geni]

Only a braindead would be surprised by the Russian defense of the two provinces of Georgia.

My oppion is that we give the two provinces to Russia, and simultanously, give the remaining Georgia NATO status.

Not with Saakashvili still around. Giveing someone like Saakashvili NATO protection is asking for him to do something stupid. Again. Pretending the south ossetia issue didn't exist has mostly served us well so far I doubt we will see a change in that police any time soon.

 

[Magtor]

My oppion is that we give the two provinces to Russia

Luckily it is not yours to give.

But if anyone could "give" them to Russia, it is the UN. However I predict that the UN will not do so. And just so everyone remembers; S.Ossetia and Abchazia are still parts of Georgia, according to the UN.