We'd actually go to bat for you guys though.Flecco wrote:
Wat the fuck? WE DON'T GET FREE SHIT FROM USA SO WHY SHOULD THEY?
Spoiler (highlight to read):
jokes.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Totten actually goes to the places he writes about, and talks to the people there. Those people have their biases, but it's usually first hand knowledge which is often better than just rehashing wire service reports like some journos do.
His reporting on Lebanon and Iraq is excellent also
@Kmarion, I think I found the set that pic came from, I was going to put a link, but I guess maybe that isn't appropriate ?
Not sure what the policy is on that, but there are some pretty rough shots in the set so I guess I won't post it
His reporting on Lebanon and Iraq is excellent also
@Kmarion, I think I found the set that pic came from, I was going to put a link, but I guess maybe that isn't appropriate ?
Not sure what the policy is on that, but there are some pretty rough shots in the set so I guess I won't post it
Yeah, those pics aren't good for the younger viewers.Vax wrote:
Totten actually goes to the places he writes about, and talks to the people there. Those people have their biases, but it's usually first hand knowledge which is often better than just rehashing wire service reports like some journos do.
His reporting on Lebanon and Iraq is excellent also
@Kmarion, I think I found the set that pic came from, I was going to put a link, but I guess maybe that isn't appropriate ?
Not sure what the policy is on that, but there are some pretty rough shots in the set so I guess I won't post it
stfu troll.God Save the Queen wrote:
I hope you all get nukes dropped on you
I still say Georgias president is an ass because he expected us to go to war over this.
I heard that we had tipped the Georgians off that the Russians were staging armor near or in the big tunnel about a week before the trouble began.
These new revelations suggesting the Georgians didn't shoot first? Not surprising, but all and all there is no benefit that I can see in either the Russians tactics, or our presidents threats.
I agree with countries dividing up along ethnic, cultural or religious lines but not when plantationism is involved - that's why I disagree with the idea of Northern Ireland, Kosovo and Israel.SgtHeihn wrote:
Does any country want to give up territory? Even if that area is a different religion. Look at Northern Ireland.Braddock wrote:
So do you not think these ethnic groups now deserve the right to divide up into separate regions along ethnic lines, the way many, many countries have been formed for centuries? Why force these regions to remain part of Georgia?SgtHeihn wrote:
No, they were all forced to live together under a Communist government that played ethnic groups against each other.
Back on topic...I have to say I still see the Russian antics as no different to those of China or the US. Meddling in territories they probably still view as part of the 'empire' and playing one side off of another, nothing new here.
I was wondering how long that would take to come out.dayarath wrote:
knew everything except the first paragraph in your post, that's surprising. I didn't know they had a ceasefire going, I did know he fired back at the seperatists after they fired some rounds.
very interesting indeed, this completely turns around Russia's decision, if only more people got to know it.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Um...that would be the USSR. It wasn't a belief necessarily that they would, but rather an intent to be prepared if they did. It's not like the USSR sat there fingerpainting and making macaroni art during the Cold War.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
It's classic Cold War scaremongering. I mean shit, who was the bright man who thought that the USSR would invade West Germany/Western Europe (breach the Iron Curtain etc..) back then anyway? How much shit did they cause through these lies.
Yes.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
Did they ever say they were going to do that? Or threaten to invade on numerous occasions?
Most likely. I think they were more sold the lie that the prosperity of the West was just propaganda and that they were living in the true paradise.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
And I've asked this before, I wonder if the people in the USSR had the same feelings about the West/USA. I wonder if their leaders used scare tactics on their population warning of a US invasion or something.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Russian motives and machinations aside neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia, distinct ethnically and linguistically, want to be part of Georgia. The brazen hypocrisy of the western world with regard to this conflict is mind boggling. Speaking of the sanctity of Georgian 'territorial integrity' while they sold part of sovereign Serbian territory down the river is beyond comprehension.
The Georgian didn't partake in genocide like the Serbians did. Not necessarily supporting anything, just pointing out facts that may have influenced decisions.CameronPoe wrote:
Russian motives and machinations aside neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia, distinct ethnically and linguistically, want to be part of Georgia. The brazen hypocrisy of the western world with regard to this conflict is mind boggling. Speaking of the sanctity of Georgian 'territorial integrity' while they sold part of sovereign Serbian territory down the river is beyond comprehension.
That being said, you do acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of Russia in the matter as well, right?
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-08-27 03:38:41)
I think we can all acknowledge the blatant, even fucking hilarious, hypocrisy from both sides here. Then again, these guys are politicians. It's part of the course to be a hypocrite, probably that unit makes up for 50% of the final grade
The Georgians and the Ossetians had a real war within themselves in the early 90's (back when Russia was too weak to do anything), the Ossetians effectively won the war and that's why Georgia isn't controlling the region. Infact, even during the times of the USSR/Russian Empire, the Georgians never controlled South Ossetia/Abkhazia (they were autonomous or w/e). They even voted for independence when Georgia itself was granted independence, but the Georgians refused it, and that's when the war started. To put it simple, the Georgians have never controlled those regions.
I just look at things from the perspective of the population. e.g: Falklands Islands, everyone there wanted to be part of the UK instead of Argentina. So Argentina had no right to claim it as theirs. Then you have places like the USA where those Mexicans want to annex some parts of the USA, that's just a small minority. So it'll never happen. Then you have places like Kosovo etc.. where the population demand independence, these types of scenario is where you gotta give 'em what they want.
The Georgians and the Ossetians had a real war within themselves in the early 90's (back when Russia was too weak to do anything), the Ossetians effectively won the war and that's why Georgia isn't controlling the region. Infact, even during the times of the USSR/Russian Empire, the Georgians never controlled South Ossetia/Abkhazia (they were autonomous or w/e). They even voted for independence when Georgia itself was granted independence, but the Georgians refused it, and that's when the war started. To put it simple, the Georgians have never controlled those regions.
I just look at things from the perspective of the population. e.g: Falklands Islands, everyone there wanted to be part of the UK instead of Argentina. So Argentina had no right to claim it as theirs. Then you have places like the USA where those Mexicans want to annex some parts of the USA, that's just a small minority. So it'll never happen. Then you have places like Kosovo etc.. where the population demand independence, these types of scenario is where you gotta give 'em what they want.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-27 04:03:57)
hmmm...so none of you people who said georgia started because the bbc said so are admitting you were wrong? not man enough i guess.
Did Georgia not attack South Ossetia and decimate Tshkinvali? Did I miss something? Of course Russia is being hypocritical.nukchebi0 wrote:
The Georgian didn't partake in genocide like the Serbians did. Not necessarily supporting anything, just pointing out facts that may have influenced decisions.CameronPoe wrote:
Russian motives and machinations aside neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia, distinct ethnically and linguistically, want to be part of Georgia. The brazen hypocrisy of the western world with regard to this conflict is mind boggling. Speaking of the sanctity of Georgian 'territorial integrity' while they sold part of sovereign Serbian territory down the river is beyond comprehension.
That being said, you do acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of Russia in the matter as well, right?
In a war like that, it's hard to see what actually did happen. Obviously each side will accuse each other of starting the war. It wasn't just the BBC, it was like, everyone that said Georgia started the war. Even WW2 was like this for awhile.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...so none of you people who said georgia started because the bbc said so are admitting you were wrong? not man enough i guess.
Wars like this always happen in these types of situations. Unless they're solved properly, periods of calm will be just that. IMO, these guys are all assholes who can't live together (they only could live together under a dictatorship USSR), it's like Iraq. The country is fine internally whilst a dictator is in, as soon as some democracy comes in the place kicks off into a civil war.
Some people can do it, others can't.
Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-27 06:49:08)
I will. I assumed Georgia did start it. Seems they didn't. I was wrong.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...so none of you people who said georgia started because the bbc said so are admitting you were wrong? not man enough i guess.
Then again I had nothing to go on but biased reports from the media. I still don't have anything but that. This report just seems more accurate than the others.
Whoa... Can't believe these forums are still kicking.
right. which is why I said that we do not know yet, but the typical people on here blamed georgia. and they should man up. not that i really expect them to.Mek-Stizzle wrote:
In a war like that, it's hard to see what actually did happen.
I blamed Georgia and i blamed Russia ... none of them are exactly blaim free in this situation ...
This conflict goes back a tad further than the point where BBC reported on the issue ...
This conflict goes back a tad further than the point where BBC reported on the issue ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
ya well point is the BBC was dead wrong, every ones favorite accurate source lulz, was dead wrong.
Never trust any news source alone ... with that said BBC is usually one of the more accurate ones ...usmarine wrote:
ya well point is the BBC was dead wrong, every ones favorite accurate source lulz, was dead wrong.
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
nope. they got something as big as this dead wrong. plain and simple. they are relegated to the fox and cnn penalty box in my book now.
sigh... people dont like the BBC because they are correct all the time, they like the BBC because they are probably the least bias news source.usmarine wrote:
nope. they got something as big as this dead wrong. plain and simple. they are relegated to the fox and cnn penalty box in my book now.
surely if they are on par in your books with fox they have been promoted?
Last edited by Vilham (2008-08-27 07:36:09)
sigh.... how do you know they didnt do it on purpose because of bias?Vilham wrote:
sigh... people dont like the BBC because they are correct all the time, they like the BBC because they are probably the least bias news source.usmarine wrote:
nope. they got something as big as this dead wrong. plain and simple. they are relegated to the fox and cnn penalty box in my book now.
Fine.usmarine wrote:
hmmm...so none of you people who said georgia started because the bbc said so are admitting you were wrong? not man enough i guess.
I admit I assumed the Georgian forces acted first.
The real question for me is is it really in our best interests to get in Russias face about what they do when we are occupying Iraq?
Hypocrisy ftl.
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug02/ … ia,00.htmlusmarine wrote:
nope. they got something as big as this dead wrong. plain and simple. they are relegated to the fox and cnn penalty box in my book now.
And what makes this Michael Totten so holy? Fighting between the separatists and Georgia on the weekend preceding August 2nd, according to the Associated Press, as related by Fox. How does one corroborate that with Totten's story?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-27 09:45:09)
I didn't really equate what Georgia did to South Ossetia with what Serbia did to Kosovo.CameronPoe wrote:
Did Georgia not attack South Ossetia and decimate Tshkinvali? Did I miss something? Of course Russia is being hypocritical.nukchebi0 wrote:
The Georgian didn't partake in genocide like the Serbians did. Not necessarily supporting anything, just pointing out facts that may have influenced decisions.CameronPoe wrote:
Russian motives and machinations aside neither Abkhazia nor South Ossetia, distinct ethnically and linguistically, want to be part of Georgia. The brazen hypocrisy of the western world with regard to this conflict is mind boggling. Speaking of the sanctity of Georgian 'territorial integrity' while they sold part of sovereign Serbian territory down the river is beyond comprehension.
That being said, you do acknowledge the blatant hypocrisy of Russia in the matter as well, right?
Just use the good old "anonymous source".....that should work, it works for all the "legitimate" news sources out there.CameronPoe wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Aug02/ … ia,00.htmlusmarine wrote:
nope. they got something as big as this dead wrong. plain and simple. they are relegated to the fox and cnn penalty box in my book now.
And what makes this Michael Totten so holy? Fighting between the separatists and Georgia on the weekend preceding August 2nd, according to the Associated Press, as related by Fox. How does one corroborate that with Totten's story?