Is U.S. at war with Russia?

[gumboot]

What has tax rates and military spending got to do with communism?

 

[Alex Libman]

With only a handful of exceptions, all modern nations are pragmatist in their political philosophy - the government grabs as much power as it can get away with, but not too much as to cause citizens to lose self-interest in working hard and participating in a sophisticated economy driven by consumption. The United States is as far from its founding philosophy and Constitution as the Soviet Union has always been from its own joke of a Constitution. In other words, there is no clearly-identifiable "free world" any more, how free or unfree a nation is is just a matter of degree. And what fraction of the wealth you create your master (government) that your master allows you to keep and control is a very straightforward and important measure. Modern Russia, like Singapore, will let you have all the freedom you want, as long as you don't get in the way of the powers that be.

 

[Darth Rotor]

...and if not, how come this? It seems that Russia just might be justified in shooting down U.S. planes carrying Georgian soldiers back to their country from Iraq. I think we would if Pakistani planes were flying alQeda into Afghanistan or Iraq.



http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5i3OehGI9KkCKf8aXpxgzkF6ewA4AD92FHP7O0

Will Bush manage to get us embroiled in the big one six months before we are supposed to see the last of him?

You raise an interesting question: since Georgia was a "good ally" and sent troops to help us out in Iraq, a reasonable quid pro quo would be to assist them in getting home if they are needed. Granted, that won't please the Russians, so W is going to have to dance the diplomatic dance a bit more delicately than he has to date.

I find curious the amount of bombast coming from NATO and Europe. It isn't as though the Russians started this latest edition of hate and discontent in SO. I may be getting skewed news coverage, but IIRC, first blood was drawn by the Georgians in calling the bluff of Russian peacekeepers in Ossetia, only to find out that unlike UN peacekeepers, Russian peacekeepers have teeth, and a political will to punish the careless.

DR

 

[Gurdur]

With only a handful of exceptions, all modern nations are pragmatist in their political philosophy

This is of course an interesting insight into your beliefs and also a direct refutation of your own ideology --- see below.

In other words, there is no clearly-identifiable "free world" any more

There either never was and never will be, or there still is, depending on how you look at it.

Either there is a scale of freedom, and therefore using any reasonable standard of measurement will find lots of natioons free today, others less free, and some damned unfree.

Of course, that's if you use reasonableness. Reasonableness is the most important standard by which several forms of insanty are diagnosed. It's associated with rationality, but not quite the same. For example, a clinical paraniod or a manic-depressive can appear absolutely rational, but not reasonable. Which brings us onto the question of libertarian ideology.

how free or unfree a nation is is just a matter of degree.

It always was and always will be, like so much else in life.

Now let's look at how you refute your ideology yourself. You can only maintain some fake "absolute" standard of freedom if you ignore all the evidence and all human experience, and in a very authoritarian way insist on the imposition of a totally bizarre, unrealistic, irrational and unreasonable
ideology as libertarianism.

Nations and people are largely pragmatist, but they are pragmatist about what they want to attain; and several nations wish to acheive as high as a degree of social security and freedom as they can, while others have different aims.

Reality, logic and reasonableness: get used to it, reality and the world don't give a stuff about libertarian agitprop.

 

[SteveGrenard]

As indicated earlier, the following is confirmed by the following paragraph buried in a Reuter’s
Dispatch:

The rebel regions lie in a belt of land in the Caucasus that is emerging as a transit route for oil and gas exports from the Caspian Sea, a strategically important region over which the United States and Russia are locked in a battle for influence.

http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSL645685320080806

 

[CFLarsen]

As indicated earlier, the following is confirmed by the following paragraph buried in a Reuter’s
Dispatch:

What is "confirmed" by the paragraph?

Why do you say "buried"? Are you hinting at some cover up that Reuters is an active part in?

What "big one"?

 

[SteveGrenard]

1. See Post#9.

2. The "big one" has been answered by another. I agree with what the other poster said. Surely even you can appreciate that a conflict between Russia and the U.S. would be "big."

3. I mean nothing other than what I said -- this information was "buried" at the end of a Reuter's report and not headlined.

However, CNN among others are beginning this morning to headline the oil pipeline issue where South Ossetia is concerned:

Georgia conflict halts oil's deep slide


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Oil prices were relatively flat Monday as a conflict between Georgia and Russia threatened crude supplies flowing through the region.

http://money.cnn.com/2008/08/11/markets/oil/?postversion=2008081110

 

[Beerina]

You don't actually think Pravda is a reliable news source, do you?

I've always relied on Pravda to get the job done efficiently and cleanly.





Oh, wait. That's Prada.

 

[CFLarsen]

1. See Post#9.

Be clearer in the future.

2. The "big one" has been answered by another. I agree with what the other poster said. Surely even you can appreciate that a conflict between Russia and the U.S. would be "big."

But not "the big one".

Why do you fear that this conflict will escalate into "the big one"?

3. I mean nothing other than what I said -- this information was "buried" at the end of a Reuter's report and not headlined.

No, you didn't say "buried", in quotes. You said buried, no quotes.

Why do you think it should be headlined?

Why do you - with your history of fear mongering and conspiracy nuttery - think you should decide what is headlined?

However, CNN among others are beginning this morning to headline the oil pipeline issue where South Ossetia is concerned:

No conspiracy of silence, then. Once again, your conspiracy nuttery is shown to be false.

 

[Jimbo07]

even Bush wouldn't be that stupid.....

evidence?

...

 

[Darth Rotor]

For fox ache Claus, this requires comment. You really need to stop stalking Steve.

1. See Post#9.

Be clearer in the future.

Observation: Irony meter in the red.

2. The "big one" has been answered by another. I agree with what the other poster said. Surely even you can appreciate that a conflict between Russia and the U.S. would be "big."

But not "the big one". Why do you fear that this conflict will escalate into "the big one"?

Claus, you assume that it won't escalate. Why? Do you have a more expensive crystal ball? I note you projecting "fear" into Steve's post, which was not apparent to me.

3. I mean nothing other than what I said -- this information was "buried" at the end of a Reuter's report and not headlined.

No, you didn't say "buried", in quotes. You said buried, no quotes.

Why do you think it should be headlined?

OK, you correctly recalled how Steve used a typewriter, and now you Try To Put Words Into His Mouth. That he observed it not being the headline does not necessitate that he thinks it should be headlined. "Buried in the text" is a common turn of phrase, generally meaning that there is more info in an article than what is advertised in a headline. I understood what he meant, you are being deliberately obtuse, and trying to put words in his mouth.

Why do you - with your history of fear mongering and conspiracy nuttery - think you should decide what is headlined?

Since he didn't say he should decide what would be headlined, Why Did You?

However, CNN among others are beginning this morning to headline the oil pipeline issue where South Ossetia is concerned:

Factual observation of how story evolves in the media: headlines, follow ups with more meat.

No conspiracy of silence, then. Once again, your conspiracy nuttery is shown to be false.

Claus, can you pleas show me where Steve characterized the media coverage as a conspiracy of silence? How can the media have been silent with the issue raised in print, albeit "buried" in a later part of the article Steve referred to? Before that, he admits he had not heard of that before, which was a confession of ignorance of a fact, not an assertion of a cover up.

Funny old deal: he admits where he doesn't know it all as part of a conversation, and you sallyl forth to attack him.

Personal attack, Claus, adding nothing to this conversation.

If America helps/supports a nation at war with another nation, and cannot remain strictly neutral (the state of war is at this point a matter of argument, it appears that the rhetoric in Georgia and Russia aren't in sync on that, as of this writing) the Russians could take the stand that the US is not being neutral, and is either a co combatant, or not correctly behaving as a neutral, and thus ask/demand that the US stop so behaving.

DR

 

[Alex Libman]

Gurdur's cheap-shots ignored, but I'd like to clarify this:

You need to understand the difference between libertarian politics and libertarian ideology. Two very different things. If your personal ideology condemns murder and someone else commits one, does that leave your ideology "unreasonable" because it can never be attained in full on a global scale? Of course not! As for libertarian politics, note that the most libertarian candidate on the POTUS ballot slot in most states, Bob Barr, is only an inch more libertarian than McBama compared to people like me. What does that tell you about our capacity for "reasonableness"?

But, please, let's not take this thread further off-topic, which should be NATO's proxy war against South Ossetia's right of self-determination.

And if you're a U.S. (or NATO) citizen - unless you're a tax resister like me, you do now have a few drops of Ossetian civilian blood on your conscience... though of course with all the Vietnamese, Arab, and other blood - who'd notice?

 

[SteveGrenard]

According to the following report Russia has called for a halt to the attack but according to
Georgia it has not occurred. This brings up a myriad of questions:

1. Is the Russian Army waging its own war and is not listening to Moscow?
2. Is there a failure to communicate or failure in communications?
3. And if so, might it be deliberate or a true faux pas?
4. Is Georgia lying? Well, hard to to do this if reporters see the attacks
happening.

By Oleg Shchedrov and Margarita Antidze

MOSCOW/TBILISI, Aug 12 (Reuters) - Russian President Dmitry Medvedev ordered a halt to military operations in Georgia on Tuesday but Tbilisi cast doubt on the announcement, saying Moscow was still bombing towns and villages.

The announcement coincided with the visit of French president Nicolas Sarkozy to Moscow on an EU peace mission and seemed intended to help international efforts to negotiate a lasting truce.

Sarkozy said Russia and Georgia, who have been fighting since last Thursday, had not yet agreed a peace deal, adding: "We don't yet have peace. But we have a provisional cessation of hostilities. And everyone should be aware that this is considerable progress. There is still much work to be done....What we want is to secure the best result."

http://www.reuters.com/article/wtMostRead/idUSN11408884._CH_.2400

 

[CFLarsen]

According to the following report Russia has called for a halt to the attack but according to
Georgia it has not occurred. This brings up a myriad of questions:

1. Is the Russian Army waging its own war and is not listening to Moscow?
2. Is there a failure to communicate or failure in communications?
3. And if so, might it be deliberate or a true faux pas?
4. Is Georgia lying? Well, hard to to do this if reporters see the attacks
happening.

Of course, reports from a war zone are always clear and easy to understand, because the information we get from everyone is always accurate...

Why do you fear that this conflict will escalate into "the big one"?

Why do you think it should be headlined?

Why do you - with your history of fear mongering and conspiracy nuttery - think you should decide what is headlined?

 

[six7s]

Why do you persist in being such an abject tosser?

Read Darth Rotor's post above

Stop being stoopid - at least in public

 

[SteveGrenard]

Here's another new aspect to the conflict from the NY Times this afternoon:

Cyberspace Barrage Preceded Russian Invasion of Georgia

By JOHN MARKOFF

Published: August 12, 2008

Weeks before physical bombs started falling on Georgia, a security researcher in suburban Massachusetts was watching an attack against the country in cyberspace.

A screen grab of the Georgian Parliament Web site, parliament.ge, which had been defaced by the "South Ossetia Hack Crew." The site's content had been replaced with images comparing Georgian President, Mikheil Saakashvili, to Adolf Hitler. Jose Nazario of Arbor Networks in Lexington noticed a stream of data directed at Georgian government sites containing the message: win+love+in+Rusia.

Other Internet experts in the United States said the attacks against Georgia’s Internet infrastructure began as early as July 20, with coordinated barrages of millions of requests — known as distributed denial of service, or D.D.O.S., attacks — that overloaded certain Georgian servers.

(snip)

According to Internet technical experts, it was the first time a cyberattack had coincided with a shooting war. But it will likely not be the last, said Bill Woodcock, the research director of the Packet Clearing House, a nonprofit that tracks Internet traffic. He said cyberattacks are so inexpensive and easy to mount, with few fingerprints, that they will almost certainly remain a feature of modern warfare.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/13/technology/13cyber.html?em

 

[Michelle Lyon]

I don't even have a clear grasp of what exactly is going on in this region, could anyone please unravel it for me? Is it just because South Ossetia wants to remain independent?

I'm also struggling with it. What exactly is going on over there? How did all this even start?

 

[six7s]

Here's another new aspect to the conflict from the NY Times this afternoon:

You don't actually think the NY Times is a reliable news source, do you?

Interesting story

Thanks

 

[egslim]

I'm also struggling with it. What exactly is going on over there? How did all this even start?

Here's a quick summery I gave in another thread, over at politics:

- With the fall of the USSR, Georgia declares independence.
- Shortly after, South Ossetia declares independence from Georgia, with the desire to unite with North Ossetia in Russia.
- Georgia responds with artillery attacks, driving north approximately half the population.
- A compromise is reached, where South Ossetia is internationally recognised as an autonomous region with a peacekeeping force.
- The population continues to favour a united Ossetia, under Russian protection. (as indicated by internationally monitored polls)

- Georgian president is elected with the promise to bring South Ossetia back under Georgian control.
- Georgia attacks South Ossetia with artillery, killing civilians (many with Russian passports) and Russian peacekeepers.
- Russia counterattacks. And does it better.

 

[Texas]

Here's a quick summery I gave in another thread, over at politics:

- With the fall of the USSR, Georgia declares independence.
- Shortly after, South Ossetia declares independence from Georgia, with the desire to unite with North Ossetia in Russia.
- Georgia responds with artillery attacks, driving north approximately half the population.
- A compromise is reached, where South Ossetia is internationally recognised as an autonomous region with a peacekeeping force.
- The population continues to favour a united Ossetia, under Russian protection. (as indicated by internationally monitored polls)

- Georgian president is elected with the promise to bring South Ossetia back under Georgian control.
- Georgia attacks South Ossetia with artillery, killing civilians (many with Russian passports) and Russian peacekeepers.
- Russia counterattacks. And does it better.

You left out the part that SO is internationally recognized as a part of Georgia
autonomous or not. You failed also to state that the Russian grunts that were the original "peacekeepers" were replaced just prior to Russia's invasion with Crack SPECOPs troops. Russia has now retreated back to Russia and any other peacekeepers will be from NATO or the UN. Poland, Estonia and Ukraine have now pledged their support for Georgia so the brilliant Putin has overplayed his hand unless he wants to try his hand with all three 2 of which are EU nations and Poland a member of NATO.