U.S. is to Iraq as Russia is to Georgia

2008-08-15 07:28:49

#1

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6949|Global Command

The invasion of Georgia stems more from our provocation with the proposed missile shield in Poland than it does with Georgias adventures in their break away territories.

It is astounding to me the reckless words being spewed by some in power.

John Bolton wrote:
Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action.

These guys seriously think a airspace blockade and military aid is the way to go here. As if open war with Russia is just no big deal.

Imagine if Russia had threaten to shoot down our fighters and air tankers over Iraq, or sent in new tanks to replace those we destroyed?
Imagine if advanced Russian AA radar and missiles were placed on Irans border with Iraq?

Call me cynical, but does anybody realize this all happened when gold fell below $800.00 per ounce, the dollar is rebounding and oil prices are falling?
It's like these guys all get together and agree to wratchet up the tension to keep markets unstable and people living in fear.

https://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44924000/jpg/_44924148_funeralap466.jpg

Bastille Day part deux, dats what I'm talking about.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldne … -West.html

Last edited by ATG (2008-08-15 07:31:59)

2008-08-15 07:34:40

#2

CameronPoe: Member; +2,925|6975

The hypocrisymeter is off the chart on this one. Russia were given a pretext to act and they took that pretext and ran a mile with it. It has some similarities with the Iraq situation. I don't think the US have the capacity to do anything on this one nor should they really (save impressing on the Russians that they should fall back to Ossetia and Abkhazia however hypocritical that would sound). It's all hot air. It's just a bit of a blow to US pride, that's all. And pride is not something you should really care about: it's not that important.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2008-08-15 07:36:28)

2008-08-15 07:38:48

#3

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6831|'Murka

ATG wrote:
The invasion of Georgia stems more from our provocation with the proposed missile shield in Poland than it does with Georgias adventures in their break away territories.

And you base that claim on what?

ATG wrote:
It is astounding to me the reckless words being spewed by some in power.
John Bolton wrote:
Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action.
These guys seriously think a airspace blockade and military aid is the way to go here. As if open war with Russia is just no big deal.

Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?

ATG wrote:
Imagine if Russia had threaten to shoot down our fighters and air tankers over Iraq, or sent in new tanks to replace those we destroyed?

Is the US doing that? Since when are tanks humanitarian aid?

ATG wrote:
Imagine if advanced Russian AA radar and missiles were placed on Irans border with Iraq?

Yeah...imagine that.

“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

2008-08-15 07:45:49

#4

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7177|Argentina

FEOS wrote:
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?

Big corporations and lobbyist groups have power, not some politician in any administration.

2008-08-15 07:47:29

#5

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7041|London, England

Yep a good old Cold War. Full of crappy hypocritical remarks from both sides, and a good dose of client/satellite states and massive arms trade, with a few invasions of said states if they get out of hand thrown in for good measure.

2008-08-15 07:48:11

#6

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6831|'Murka

sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?
Big corporations and lobbyist groups have power, not some politician in any administration.

Oh I see. So Exxon votes on bills and Valero signs them into law? And Microsoft execs travel to other countries and meet with their heads of state?

BTW...John Bolton is neither a corporation or a lobbyist group.

“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

2008-08-15 07:51:02

#7

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7177|Argentina

FEOS wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?
Big corporations and lobbyist groups have power, not some politician in any administration.
Oh I see. So Exxon votes on bills and Valero signs them into law? And Microsoft execs travel to other countries and meet with their heads of state?

BTW...John Bolton is neither a corporation or a lobbyist group.

I never said he was. And yes, indirectly those corporations vote on bills and push them into laws. It's called corruption and it happens everywhere, not just in the US.

2008-08-15 07:52:12

#8

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6831|'Murka

Those corporations vote on nothing, indirectly or otherwise.

“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

2008-08-15 07:52:26

#9

Chrisimo: Member; +3|6172

FEOS wrote:
sergeriver wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?
Big corporations and lobbyist groups have power, not some politician in any administration.
Oh I see. So Exxon votes on bills and Valero signs them into law? And Microsoft execs travel to other countries and meet with their heads of state?

BTW...John Bolton is neither a corporation or a lobbyist group.

Based on my (perhaps faulty) knowledge that most bills go through a commitee in both the Senate and the House of Representatives I think they can influence some of those comitee members. At least when it comes to preventing a bill.

Last edited by Chrisimo (2008-08-15 07:53:46)

2008-08-15 07:54:47

#10

sergeriver: Cowboy from Hell; +1,928|7177|Argentina

FEOS wrote:
Those corporations vote on nothing, indirectly or otherwise.

*cough* ur naive *cough*

2008-08-15 08:26:10

#11

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6949|Global Command

FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
The invasion of Georgia stems more from our provocation with the proposed missile shield in Poland than it does with Georgias adventures in their break away territories.
And you base that claim on what?

Common sense.
It has been said that countries between Russia and Nato are more likely to be swallowed by Russia. They feel compelled to act before these countries sign a mutual defense pact.

FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
It is astounding to me the reckless words being spewed by some in power.
John Bolton wrote:
Russia’s invasion across an internationally recognised border, its thrashing of the Georgian military, and its smug satisfaction in humbling one of its former fiefdoms represents only the visible damage.

As bad as the bloodying of Georgia is, the broader consequences are worse. The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action.
These guys seriously think a airspace blockade and military aid is the way to go here. As if open war with Russia is just no big deal.
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?

Bolton says what the admin cannot. He speaks for the neocon element and is testing the bounderies of rhetoric.

FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
Imagine if Russia had threaten to shoot down our fighters and air tankers over Iraq, or sent in new tanks to replace those we destroyed?
Is the US doing that? Since when are tanks humanitarian aid?

The U.S. has stated it intends to rebuild the Georgian military.

FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
Imagine if advanced Russian AA radar and missiles were placed on Irans border with Iraq?
Yeah...imagine that.

Russia supssedly supplies Iran with Chinese radar. Mayhap they did, mayhap they didn't. It is not the official Russian policy to defend Iran in case of a U.S. attack, like it is for us if Russia attacks Poland.

I seem to recall mr. bush giving saddam and sons 48 hours to gtfo of Iraq. Seems a tad hostile.

Bush The Destroyer wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing."

2008-08-15 11:36:30

#12

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7182

FEOS wrote:
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?

lol....the news might as well quote shit from here also.

2008-08-15 11:42:12

#13

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|7065

I think ATG knows what he is talking about (meaning based on what I read I haven't read everything so I might disagree with some stuff I just glanced over some stuff) hehehe

Last edited by blademaster (2008-08-15 11:48:53)

2008-08-15 11:42:37

#14

usmarine: Banned; +2,785|7182

wtf blade?

2008-08-15 11:45:50

#15

SgtHeihn: Should have ducked; +394|6907|Ham Lake, MN (Fucking Cold)

Cold War II!! FTW!!

2008-08-15 11:46:34

#16

blademaster: I'm moving to Brazil; +2,075|7065

usmarine wrote:
wtf blade?

what me still likes u 2

2008-08-15 11:50:41

#17

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7041|London, England

SgtHeihn wrote:
Cold War II!! FTW!!

Damn straight I was getting bored of these Muslims (and Jews)

At least with the Ruskies, you know where they stand.

Last edited by Mek-Stizzle (2008-08-15 11:51:07)

2008-08-15 12:07:58

#18

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6603|Ireland

#1 Iraqi was invaded under the UN flag, then broke a cease fire, UN passed resolution stating sevre consequences if Sadam didn't co-operate, A US collilition invaded Iraq the second time, Iraq is being rebuilt, Iraq will be soveirgn

#2 Russia has no UN authorization, Russia has no stated objective other then to destroy their military and flex muscles.

#3 Ill thought out post by you.

#4 You are not Irish, so this sort of America bashing is bellow you.

Pls delete this thread before I unleash the full capabilities of my keyboard.

2008-08-15 12:18:24

#19

Mekstizzle: WALKER; +3,611|7041|London, England

Lotta_Drool wrote:
#2 Russia has no UN authorization, Russia has no stated objective other then to destroy their military and flex muscles.

Actually their reason was that Georgia invaded South Ossetia, and I think Russia doesn't recognise South Ossetia to be part of Georgia, and also the South Ossetians hold Russian citizenship. So that's why they invaded. Well that's what they say, obviously like every other war/invasion the reasons are quite different to what they actually say.

2008-08-15 12:24:19

#20

PureFodder: Member; +225|6706

FEOS wrote:
Those corporations vote on nothing, indirectly or otherwise.

And the billions of dollars spent lobbying govenment officials have zero effect and are just corporations way of throwing money down the toilet like successful businessmen usually do.

2008-08-15 13:45:14

#21

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6831|'Murka

PureFodder wrote:
FEOS wrote:
Those corporations vote on nothing, indirectly or otherwise.
And the billions of dollars spent lobbying govenment officials have zero effect and are just corporations way of throwing money down the toilet like successful businessmen usually do.

I didn't say that. I said those corporations vote on nothing. Pay attention.

“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

2008-08-15 13:50:33

#22

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6949|Global Command

Lotta_Drool wrote:
#1 Iraqi was invaded under the UN flag, then broke a cease fire, UN passed resolution stating sevre consequences if Sadam didn't co-operate, A US collilition invaded Iraq the second time, Iraq is being rebuilt, Iraq will be soveirgn

#2 Russia has no UN authorization, Russia has no stated objective other then to destroy their military and flex muscles.

#3 Ill thought out post by you.

#4 You are not Irish, so this sort of America bashing is bellow you.

Pls delete this thread before I unleash the full capabilities of my keyboard.

Okay, I'll put you down in the MAD camp.

Mutually destroying each other is about as smart as standing on your head and packing rocks in your ass.

While both may sound fun, both involve pain, blood and a massive headache.

2008-08-15 14:03:53

#23

FEOS: Bellicose Yankee Air Pirate; +1,182|6831|'Murka

ATG wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
The invasion of Georgia stems more from our provocation with the proposed missile shield in Poland than it does with Georgias adventures in their break away territories.
And you base that claim on what?
Common sense.
It has been said that countries between Russia and Nato are more likely to be swallowed by Russia. They feel compelled to act before these countries sign a mutual defense pact.

Too late. Poland is part of NATO already. Remember this...it will apply later.

ATG wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
It is astounding to me the reckless words being spewed by some in power.

These guys seriously think a airspace blockade and military aid is the way to go here. As if open war with Russia is just no big deal.
Since when does a guy with no job in the US administration equate to "being in power"?
Bolton says what the admin cannot. He speaks for the neocon element and is testing the bounderies of rhetoric.

If you say so. Pretty sure the guy got fired.

ATG wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
Imagine if Russia had threaten to shoot down our fighters and air tankers over Iraq, or sent in new tanks to replace those we destroyed?
Is the US doing that? Since when are tanks humanitarian aid?
The U.S. has stated it intends to rebuild the Georgian military.

The US has stated it intends to keep up the relationship with Georgia. Part of that was military training to bring Georgia up to the NATO standard. And it's not just the US...it's a NATO effort.

ATG wrote:
FEOS wrote:
ATG wrote:
Imagine if advanced Russian AA radar and missiles were placed on Irans border with Iraq?
Yeah...imagine that.
Russia supssedly supplies Iran with Chinese radar. Mayhap they did, mayhap they didn't. It is not the official Russian policy to defend Iran in case of a U.S. attack, like it is for us if Russia attacks Poland.

It's official NATO policy, as Poland is a member state (see first response, above). That means it won't just be the US responding.

ATG wrote:
I seem to recall mr. bush giving saddam and sons 48 hours to gtfo of Iraq. Seems a tad hostile.

Bush The Destroyer wrote:
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Saying the "danger was clear" that the Iraqi regime would provide terrorists with biological, chemical or nuclear weapons, President Bush gave Iraqi President Saddam Hussein 48 hours for him and his sons to leave Iraq before military action begins "at a time of our choosing."

Did Bush The Destroyer give Vlad the Impaler (names are fun!) an ultimatum of some sort? Or did you purposefully make an irrelevant link?

“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

2008-08-15 15:43:38

#24

Lotta_Drool: Spit; +350|6603|Ireland

ATG wrote:
Lotta_Drool wrote:
#1 Iraqi was invaded under the UN flag, then broke a cease fire, UN passed resolution stating sevre consequences if Sadam didn't co-operate, A US collilition invaded Iraq the second time, Iraq is being rebuilt, Iraq will be soveirgn

#2 Russia has no UN authorization, Russia has no stated objective other then to destroy their military and flex muscles.

#3 Ill thought out post by you.

#4 You are not Irish, so this sort of America bashing is bellow you.

Pls delete this thread before I unleash the full capabilities of my keyboard.
Okay, I'll put you down in the MAD camp.

Mutually destroying each other is about as smart as standing on your head and packing rocks in your ass.

While both may sound fun, both involve pain, blood and a massive headache.

Your comparison between Georgia and Iraq is as compelling as saying Farts and Turds are the same because they both stink.

How you manage to make Georgia the US's fault is beyond me McATG.

2008-08-15 15:46:13

#25

ATG: Banned; +5,233|6949|Global Command

Lotta_Drool wrote:
ATG wrote:
Lotta_Drool wrote:
#1 Iraqi was invaded under the UN flag, then broke a cease fire, UN passed resolution stating sevre consequences if Sadam didn't co-operate, A US collilition invaded Iraq the second time, Iraq is being rebuilt, Iraq will be soveirgn

#2 Russia has no UN authorization, Russia has no stated objective other then to destroy their military and flex muscles.

#3 Ill thought out post by you.

#4 You are not Irish, so this sort of America bashing is bellow you.

Pls delete this thread before I unleash the full capabilities of my keyboard.
Okay, I'll put you down in the MAD camp.

Mutually destroying each other is about as smart as standing on your head and packing rocks in your ass.

While both may sound fun, both involve pain, blood and a massive headache.
Your comparison between Georgia and Iraq is as compelling as saying Farts and Turds are the same because they both stink.

How you manage to make Georgia the US's fault is beyond me McATG.

Dude, they were two months away from joining NATO.

If they were part of NATO, we would be at war right now.

If I was commanding Russia, I would be checking the other surrounding nations for NATO aspirations and planning my ops.

BF2S Forums U.S. is to Iraq as Russia is to Georgia

John Bolton wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

John Bolton wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

sergeriver wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

John Bolton wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bush The Destroyer wrote:

FEOS wrote:

usmarine wrote:

SgtHeihn wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

FEOS wrote:

PureFodder wrote:

FEOS wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

FEOS wrote:

ATG wrote:

ATG wrote:

Bush The Destroyer wrote:

ATG wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

ATG wrote:

Lotta_Drool wrote:

Board footer