Russia and Georgia fighting over South Ossetia

[collegestudent22]

And that new timeline of 2010, is that a promise or another projection? And how can it be that while talking about pulling the troops out, you send in even more?

Which timeline is that now? The one that some in the Iraqi government are calling for, and hasn't even been approved yet?

You´ll never withdraw from Iraq, you will have permanent bases there.

Yes, that is typically something that allies do. You know have military presences in each other's countries. We have bases in Korea, Germany, Australia. And where we don't, we typically have troops assigned to assist on some of the home country's bases...

That's a week later than they promised. The current leadership in Moscow is bearing more resemblance to the days of Brezhnev and Andropov, and I find it rather disturbing.

A week later, my god. Tell me you are being sarcastic.[/quote]

You realize it should take all of a few hours, right? I mean, they didn't topple the government and have to rebuild from scratch....

I´m bringing up Vietnam because Martin brought up that maybe only 133 people died and that sems not enough to invade some other country, right?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was essentially used as an excuse to get Congress to vote Kennedy's way. He was determined to protect the sovereignty of South Vietnam and prevent more forceful Communist expansion. Vietnam was essentially a defensive war. Not like the current war between Russia and Georgia, because of one key difference. If the Vietcong had requested a cease-fire, the troops would have become essentially border guards, but they did not. Georgia did, and it took a long time for the Russians to back off. And if this war was truly about the independence/annexation of South Ossetia, why would the Russians use Chechyan battalions, knowing that Chechyans and Georgians have a 300 year old blood fued, and the Chechyans will be unneccesarily cruel. Because they don't care about South Ossetia, they are trying to make political points and gain some land in the process.

[StruckingFuggle]

Yes, that is typically something that allies do. You know have military presences in each other's countries. We have bases in Korea, Germany, Australia. And where we don't, we typically have troops assigned to assist on some of the home country's bases...

Huh. Meanwhile, out of curiosity, who has bases on US soil, especially within the borders of the Contiguous US...?

The Gulf of Tonkin incident was essentially used as an excuse to get Congress to vote Kennedy's way.

That's kind of funny, because at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, JFK WAS DEAD. Man, now THAT is a conspiracy.

[Hirschof]

Also, I didn´t know you only have bases with your allies. You have a bloody lot of them by that logic.

That is what happens when your the neo-Roman empire.

[StruckingFuggle]

It doesn´t work that way, the US does not want foreign military in their own country.

See, that's what I thought, but damn if I didn't want cs22 to make the point for me and hopefully realize something in the process.

[Deacon]

What would be realized? And if I'm not mistaken, don't troops from other nations train on US bases, too? I know the British do, at least.

[Arc Orion]

Furthermore, why would a nation with fewer military resources establish bases to help protect the nation with greater military resources?

[Hirschof]

Fucking outsourcing...

[collegestudent22]

What would be realized? And if I'm not mistaken, don't troops from other nations train on US bases, too? I know the British do, at least.

As well as Canadians, Germans (they even have German Tornado planes in NM), Aussies, French (although they don't have much of a military to start with...). And all of those bases are IN the US.

Huh. Meanwhile, out of curiosity, who has bases on US soil, especially within the borders of the Contiguous US...?

As was mentioned, we aren't really in a position of requiring homeland assistance. We kinda have MORE military strength, so our allies are more prone to keep their military power reserved, especially since they are closer to old and current enemies.

That's kind of funny, because at the time of the Gulf of Tonkin incident, JFK WAS DEAD. Man, now THAT is a conspiracy.

And was there any reason that LBJ wouldn't have done what Kennedy wanted before he died. He certainly did so with almost every other policy point.

[Martin Blank]

The Gulf of Tonkin Incident was a complete fabrication, a mechanism designed to get the US further involved in Vietnam. I'm not afraid of saying it (unlike cs22), because it's true.

160 000 Ossets fled Ossetia because of some mortars?

South Ossetia's pre-war population was only 70,000 in 2000, so your number is way off. There was a total of 160,000 displaced, but that included a lot of Georgians, including 56,000 from Gori alone, and another 15,000 Georgians fleeing South Ossetia.

I may be wrong Martin Blank, but it is not Russia who violated the treaty on conventional armed forces in Europe by investing in that missile system in Poland and Czech respublik, claiming it is designed to counter Iran. It is very hard to not see expension NATO in ex Soviet area as mere provokation.

I've not heard much about claims of violating such a treaty. In addition, as has been mentioned many times, there will be ten or so interceptors total. Russia has nearly 500 ICBMs carrying nearly 1800 warheads -- and this doesn't even touch on the subs or the bomber-launched weapons. The system is not at all a threat to Russia.

Also, I didn´t know you only have bases with your allies. You have a bloody lot of them by that logic.

We do, actually. NATO encompasses most of Europe. We have alliances with several Middle Eastern nations. The alliances with Japan and Thailand go back many decades. That's what you get for being the biggest kid on the block. Some nations turned to the Soviets, and others to the US, depending on their guiding ideology.

I cannot place my finger on it, but what happened the last time you armed and trained some organisation that was against the russians?

The Russians got bogged down for the better part of 15 years, throwing thousands of soldiers and billions in equipment into a meat grinder from which they belatedly realized there was no chance of reaching their goals.

And then there was NATO, which kept Russia from pulling a Czechoslovakia across the continent.

Europe was not frighened of Russia. We were never in a cold war with them.

Would you mind explaining to me why West Germany allowed a significant portion of the US military to be based on its soil, with forces permanently in the field, cannons pointed east? Perhaps you can explain the nuclear deterrents of France and the UK, who kept a missile sub at sea, kept patrols in the air, and had nuclear cruise missiles available for arming planes kept on warm stand-by 24/7. Why was it that Turkey allowed Jupiter nuclear missiles on its territory before they were withdrawn as part of the deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis?

Every nation involved with NATO -- including a few who were not full members -- was involved directly with the Cold War. The first shot fired across the border of the Warsaw Pact -- in either direction -- was going to start a continental war, and everyone maintained a high state of readiness.

Those of you trying to suggest that because the US invaded Iraq means that it's not allowed to criticize Russia for the level of action in Georgia are simply erecting a straw man and avoiding the point. What about Burkina Faso condemning the invasion? Are its criticisms invalid?

The issue here is not that Russia responded. It had that right and duty as part of the peacekeeping force. Georgia wasn't supposed to undertake direct action in the way that it did, and was rightfully pushed out of South Ossetia. However, Russia should have stopped there pending additional meetings at the UN. As it is, their actions in recognizing independence of those areas has set a bad precedent for themselves. What happens if, say, Turkey recognizes the independence of Chechnya?

[Makh]

South Ossetia's pre-war population was only 70,000 in 2000, so your number is way off. There was a total of 160,000 displaced, but that included a lot of Georgians, including 56,000 from Gori alone, and another 15,000 Georgians fleeing South Ossetia.

That does not matter for the point I was trying to make. The provenance of the people is not important as they are all victims of this war. My intention was to show that it was not an insignificant clash between two parties. I should have said "refugee" to avoid confusion. A mistake of mine I guess.

Why was it that Turkey allowed Jupiter nuclear missiles on its territory before they were withdrawn as part of the deal ending the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I thought that was the instigation of US airforce because France refused to provide a place for them? I prefer to let Lucksi answer regarding Germany.

Those of you trying to suggest that because the US invaded Iraq means that it's not allowed to criticize Russia for the level of action in Georgia are simply erecting a straw man and avoiding the point. What about Burkina Faso condemning the invasion? Are its criticisms invalid?

They can criticize if they want. The problem I have is that US yelled at Russia, and whispered to Georgia.

As it is, their actions in recognizing independence of those areas has set a bad precedent for themselves.

I see. Tell me what is diffence between this and Kosovo? If NATO want to open pandora box, they must live with consequences.

What happens if, say, Turkey recognizes the independence of Chechnya?

Ossetian separatists are big majority, Chechen separatists have always been a minority. A minority with rocket launchers and machine guns is still minority. Chechen separatists are way too extreme in their belief of Islam. Turkey would never recognize it.

[Deacon]

you have not yet realised that you are in a meat grinder with no hopes of reaching your goal.

Are you saying that the US in Iraq is like Russia in Afghanistan?

Yes, sure, like the US would do the same or listen to the UN in the first place.

I'm pretty sure the US would not invade Georgia, no. Why would you say it would?

[StruckingFuggle]

What would be realized? And if I'm not mistaken, don't troops from other nations train on US bases, too? I know the British do, at least.

There's a difference between training on US bases and having actual foreign bases (which also count as foreign soil, don't they?) fully staffed by foreigners within your borders.

And I doubt that "that's what allies do", as cs22 claimed, would actually hold true. It's more like "that's what the US does to its allies" - I don't think the argument would fly if some/anyone else wanted to establish a military base and presence within the United States.

Furthermore, why would a nation with fewer military resources establish bases to help protect the nation with greater military resources?

Just a small one, perhaps. To test the strength of alliance and show that the other country isn't being a rather awful hypocrite.

And "just in case".

[Arc Orion]

Just a small one, perhaps. To test the strength of alliance and show that the other country isn't being a rather awful hypocrite.

Maybe. Still seems like a general waste of resources. I do see the point, however, in having soldiers stay in the country for the purpose of training and the like.

And "just in case".

In case what? In case there is a war between the nations, in which case the small base would be gone before it knew what hit it?

[StruckingFuggle]

In answer to Arc:

In case what? In case there is a war between the nations, in which case the small base would be gone before it knew what hit it?

A noble sacrifice to help turn popular opinion and international support against the united states. If they tied to destroy it, rather than kick people out, it'd look rather bad, especially if it was done to a nominal ally, and make it harder for them to garner support or goodwill, I'd imagine. Though I wasn't being rather serious there.

Mostly, yeah, there's no good reason, but my bigger issue was with cs22's use of the argument "it's what allies do", when I seriously doubt that US would allow a foreign military base to be constructed on US soil, even using that argument, and not JUST because "there's no good reason for you to do that".

Which isn't to say there's no good reason for us to have bases, it's just that the character of the particular argument he used is rather weak.


Ahem, anyway:
Arguably, it seems that maybe Russia might be more justified in their actions than the US was with regards to Iraq. I mean, correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the majority of the people in South Ossetia want to be Russian, rather than Georgian, and try democratically to part ways with their Georgian overlords? How welcome are the Russians among the South Ossetian majority? Is it really 'conquest' or 'wrong' if the local populace wish to defect? (and if so, wouldn't that make it wrong, what we Americans did in the late 18th century, trying to be Not British?)

I mean, sure, Russia is big and scary and Putin seems sometimes like a Bond Villain (sorry, Makh), but that doesn't mean everything they do is automatically evil or wrong. <JOKE>It's not like they're America. :p</JOKE>

[Deacon]

Tyranny of the South Ossetian majority?

Are you saying that the US in Iraq is like Russia in Afghanistan?

Not only Iraq, Afghanistan too.

In your opinion, what are the significant parallels between the US in Iraq and Russia in Afghanistan that lead you to make that statement?