We arm the Georgians to fight Russians, the Russians end up arming the Afghans to fight Americans. Now that truly would be irony. Of course the Iranians have already got the Taliban covered.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
People want us to pull out of Iraq? Fine, we'll ship the Georgians to Iraq and we'll go fight the Russians directly in Georgia.Kmarion wrote:
We arm the Georgians to fight Russians, the Russians end up arming the Afghans to fight Americans. Now that truly would be irony. Of course the Iranians have already got the Taliban covered.
Why don't we all have a big glass of stfu.
Let the commie bastards do what they will, for now.
If I was president of Russia I would have done much the same.
Let the commie bastards do what they will, for now.
If I was president of Russia I would have done much the same.
You'd be flying your bombers over Europe and Alaska too? ass. lol.ATG wrote:
Why don't we all have a big glass of stfu.
Let the commie bastards do what they will, for now.
If I was president of Russia I would have done much the same.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
well as long as you take back all the drunk micks from here first.Braddock wrote:
Yes get the fuck out of Europe please. We have a nice comfy socialist bed here, no room for fat Americans.Lotta_Drool wrote:
Yeah, this is why I am for:fadedsteve wrote:
Yep!! Its time for the EU to strap a nutsack and get with the program! Its time for Germany, France, and England and the rest of the lot to tell Russia to go fuck itself. The USA can help a lot but it takes a team effort to deal with the Russians!
BRING ALL THE US TROOPS IN EUROPE HOME NOW. fuck europe can make its own bed and sleep in it. I pay enough in taxes already.
Some of that may be true, but technology is really the key to being dominant in this world. We can't afford to be isolated from the rest of the world, but at the same time, I would agree that we are currently too interventionist for our own good.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Native Americans had no stimuli for technological advancement. They were perfectly happy living life as they saw fit, and it could be argued that they had a better life than anyone in this age ever could. Nature does wonders for the human soul.Ajax_the_Great1 wrote:
Kinda reminds me of that last episode of Seinfeld TBH.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Isolationism is for nations that are looking to be the philosophic, humanitarian, economic, and technological leaders of tomorrow.
The native americans were isolated from the rest of the world for quite some time. It cleary helped them become of the technological leaders of tomorow.
Obviously, the stimuli are there to push America to be a world leader, even keeping to ourselves as much as possible.
Still, as Ajax pointed out... isolationism can lead to things like stagnation, which is what was happening to the natives. A lot of the reason for why the North American natives were so easily defeated by us (besides technology and disease) was that they had spent centuries fighting each other. The Iroquois weren't exactly peaceful people, and who knows just how many tribes were killed by them?
The point is... even in an isolated environment like the New World, conquest still occurs. It just happens on a smaller scale and with more primitive weapons. It's only natural for us to fight each other, which is why keeping up strong defenses is a good idea, as is being somewhat active in world affairs.
Good points, but you know my stance on Israel. I don't like them anymore than you do, and I'd like us to let Israel handle things however they feel like it (and let their neighbors do the same to them). Of course, our Zionists won't let that happen.CameronPoe wrote:
Russia is not a threat to the 'world' as a whole. It's a threat to what it regards as its 'sphere of influence': Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Kyrgyzstan, Ukraine, Belarus and some non-EU slavic countries (e.g. Serbia).
It is acting the serious cunt by occupying the town of Gori longer than necessary (or at all for that reason) and turning a blind eye to Ossetian looters.
There will be no new Cold War. Like it or not Russia is important, Europe needs it and it's here to stay as a new(ish) power. That doesn't mean we have to like that but we do have to deal with that. What concern all of this is to the US I really don't know - you guys are safely thousands of miles from the region. It's really an EU issue if anything. Russia is just being as belligerent and unilateral as the US/UK has been with Iraq (although at least the Georgians provoked the Russians, unlike the Iraqis) and as Israel was in Lebanon. The Georgian president authorised an attack on South Ossetia - Russia inevitably responded. Russia now calls for said President to be deposed (a la US/UK 'regime change' in Iraq). Neither the US/UK interference in the politics of Iraq nor the Russian interference in the politics of Georgia were/are justifiable. How people who advocated war in Iraq or promote 'regime change' in distant perceived 'belligerent' countries or support Israel whole-heartedly can criticise Russian action here is beyond me. Russia were part of an international agreement to provide peacekeeping in South Ossetia and Abkhazia - Georgia broke that agreement. Saakashvili did this against the wishes of the west. THe only issue here is that Russia violated Georgia 'proper' which was way out of line - akin to typical Israeli retaliation.
I see where you're coming from, but neither Iraq nor Afghanistan were allies of Russia. Georgia is an ally of America. Russia knew exactly what it was getting into by assaulting one of our allies.CameronPoe wrote:
Demanding things of Russia on this issue amidst all the hypocrisy is beyond the pale of understanding. Russia will do what it wants here, in its own time, because it knows Europe needs it and it knows there isn't a single sodding thing anyone in the world can do about it. They are powerful again. Talking of military action against Russia when the pot is calling the kettle black is just ludicrous. What will happen here is that South Ossetia and maybe Abkhazia (possible independence a la Kosovo?) will be inducted into Russia and Georgia will continue as it had done without these two regions. This conflict stands since 1991 - it had to come to a conclusion at some point and this is probably endgame. Ossetians and Abkhazians could never be expected to be part of Georgia now or to trust Georgians after what Georgia has done to them.
PS How would you like it if Russia DEMANDED that the US/UK withdrew from Iraq and Afghanistan? It's the exact same thing as what the west is demanding of them right now. In all cases the response would probably be 'the military operations have not yet been concluded satsifactorily' when the fact of the matter is all parties should have packed their fucking bags ages ago.
PPS Pushing Russia further into the cold will play into the hands of Iran ftr.
Doesn't Russia have the property rights? The population of South Ossetia is 90% Russian & doesn't want to be Georgian no matter how kool their flag is. I think the US and everyone else needs to mind their own business. Georgia started it & now Russia's ending it. Russia is our ally as well, we should be the mediator in between the two not screaming & pointing fingers at Russia.
Russia (and USSR back in the day) is a country that likes to flex its muscles. likes to bully smaller nations in their sphere of influence. but as far as can be seen in history. they wouldn't risk invading a EU country. or destroying any US interests in the region. they just wanna feel like they have the power in the region but wont do anything drastic. but really i think the west is being hypocritical with the whole Georgia-Russia thing. We went into Iraq with far less reason. and we followed the USSR's way by running around Afganistan for years getting our asses blown up. so really i dont see Russia as a world threat, unless provoked by the west into retaliation. which i would hope will never happen.
Uh... Russia isn't exactly an ally of ours, although we had been trying to become more congenial until Putin started really escalating his powermongering.TrollmeaT wrote:
Doesn't Russia have the property rights? The population of South Ossetia is 90% Russian & doesn't want to be Georgian no matter how kool their flag is. I think the US and everyone else needs to mind their own business. Georgia started it & now Russia's ending it. Russia is our ally as well, we should be the mediator in between the two not screaming & pointing fingers at Russia.
I'm surprised you would advocate letting Russia do its thing though. Wasn't Ayn Rand fiercely in favor of containing the influence of the Soviets?
Being a dominant nation does not necessarily translate to a nation providing the best life possible for its people. That said, obviously high technology is important if not a requirement to being a world power, but that doesn't mean we would stop developing technology just because we aren't bestest buddies with everyone.Turquoise wrote:
Some of that may be true, but technology is really the key to being dominant in this world. We can't afford to be isolated from the rest of the world, but at the same time, I would agree that we are currently too interventionist for our own good.
Still, as Ajax pointed out... isolationism can lead to things like stagnation, which is what was happening to the natives. A lot of the reason for why the North American natives were so easily defeated by us (besides technology and disease) was that they had spent centuries fighting each other. The Iroquois weren't exactly peaceful people, and who knows just how many tribes were killed by them?
The point is... even in an isolated environment like the New World, conquest still occurs. It just happens on a smaller scale and with more primitive weapons. It's only natural for us to fight each other, which is why keeping up strong defenses is a good idea, as is being somewhat active in world affairs.
Comparing the Western invasion of Native Americans to our current day society is just way off the mark. It would be more akin to aliens with superior technology and radically different culture invading Earth. We live in such a small world that it is impossible to maintain isolationism in the denotative sense, people travel the world for business and pleasure, there is wide scale (legal) immigration, and the most obvious case of all the internet. I mean seriously, even if we cut all diplomatic ties to the world places just like this wouldn't exist? That ease of communication drives competition and therefore innovation, we don't need (though I admit it certainly is nice in this respect) the military industrial complex to drive all of our intellectual goals.
America should still play "the game" if you will to win, she just needs to approach it in a different manner.
For the longest time, I wanted America to be like Norway. In many respects, Norway is the best country on the planet. They really do live charmed lives over there because of their wise choices to remain somewhat out of the fray of international turmoil. But then I realized that the only reasons they can do that are because they're so small and geographically removed from most conflict areas. Ever since the end of WW2, they had little to worry about.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Being a dominant nation does not necessarily translate to a nation providing the best life possible for its people. That said, obviously high technology is important if not a requirement to being a world power, but that doesn't mean we would stop developing technology just because we aren't bestest buddies with everyone.Turquoise wrote:
Some of that may be true, but technology is really the key to being dominant in this world. We can't afford to be isolated from the rest of the world, but at the same time, I would agree that we are currently too interventionist for our own good.
Still, as Ajax pointed out... isolationism can lead to things like stagnation, which is what was happening to the natives. A lot of the reason for why the North American natives were so easily defeated by us (besides technology and disease) was that they had spent centuries fighting each other. The Iroquois weren't exactly peaceful people, and who knows just how many tribes were killed by them?
The point is... even in an isolated environment like the New World, conquest still occurs. It just happens on a smaller scale and with more primitive weapons. It's only natural for us to fight each other, which is why keeping up strong defenses is a good idea, as is being somewhat active in world affairs.
Yet, their privileged position is partially because of our influence. If there wasn't some country like ours to stand up to Russia, a lot more of Europe would have fallen to the USSR. The U.K. is a powerful force in their own right, and now that the EU is around, we're thankfully not alone in our opposition to Russia's recent aggression. Still, the world needs our intervention somewhat, regardless of whether they want to admit it or not. We are a key player who would leave a massive power vacuum behind if we became isolationist. You can guess who would likely fill in that vacuum -- China.
In short, it is because of our size and power that we cannot be isolationist. I hate to say it, but we have a responsibility to get involved, regardless of how much we might be hated for it.
I'll definitely agree with you on that last sentence.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Comparing the Western invasion of Native Americans to our current day society is just way off the mark. It would be more akin to aliens with superior technology and radically different culture invading Earth. We live in such a small world that it is impossible to maintain isolationism in the denotative sense, people travel the world for business and pleasure, there is wide scale (legal) immigration, and the most obvious case of all the internet. I mean seriously, even if we cut all diplomatic ties to the world places just like this wouldn't exist? That ease of communication drives competition and therefore innovation, we don't need (though I admit it certainly is nice in this respect) the military industrial complex to drive all of our intellectual goals.
America should still play "the game" if you will to win, she just needs to approach it in a different manner.
This is exactly the sentiment that America needs to shake. We are not the mommy and daddy of the world, and we need to stop acting like it. If anything remaining aloof from the conflicts of other nations gives us a better position on the bargaining table, because we are a wild card. If people don't know how one of the most effective nations in the world will act, that uncertainty can temper a lot of ambition.Turquoise wrote:
In short, it is because of our size and power that we cannot be isolationist. I hate to say it, but we have a responsibility to get involved, regardless of how much we might be hated for it.
You speak of a power vacuum as if we're going somewhere - we're not. Because we don't choose to deploy our troops does not mean they drop off the face of the earth, or just because we are playing things close to the vest does not mean we don't have the winning hand. The power is still there, and honestly for an isolationist policy to work you either have to be small enough that no one cares or big enough that no one would want to pick a fight with you. As obviously the former is not the case, the latter would be the only option.
You also mention China as if they are the anti-christ. Why should we not side with China? Why would them coming to power be such a bad thing? We are stuck in a rut with firm ties to certain nations that while they can be counted on, are just as much of a liability as an asset. Choosing allies based on tradition and not tactics is a scary proposition.
I would like to think of our countries as allies especially since we send huge aid packages over to them. I believe ayn would protect property rights even in this situation because without that you can have no freedom. They are russians now not, soviets & she was a russian that loved america.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... Russia isn't exactly an ally of ours, although we had been trying to become more congenial until Putin started really escalating his powermongering.TrollmeaT wrote:
Doesn't Russia have the property rights? The population of South Ossetia is 90% Russian & doesn't want to be Georgian no matter how kool their flag is. I think the US and everyone else needs to mind their own business. Georgia started it & now Russia's ending it. Russia is our ally as well, we should be the mediator in between the two not screaming & pointing fingers at Russia.
I'm surprised you would advocate letting Russia do its thing though. Wasn't Ayn Rand fiercely in favor of containing the influence of the Soviets?
Last edited by TrollmeaT (2008-08-15 21:17:27)
Is Russia really the bad guys here? Let's stay out of this.
Because China makes us look like the Boy Scouts by comparison when it comes to ethics. They're not the antichrist, but it's close enough for me.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
This is exactly the sentiment that America needs to shake. We are not the mommy and daddy of the world, and we need to stop acting like it. If anything remaining aloof from the conflicts of other nations gives us a better position on the bargaining table, because we are a wild card. If people don't know how one of the most effective nations in the world will act, that uncertainty can temper a lot of ambition.Turquoise wrote:
In short, it is because of our size and power that we cannot be isolationist. I hate to say it, but we have a responsibility to get involved, regardless of how much we might be hated for it.
You speak of a power vacuum as if we're going somewhere - we're not. Because we don't choose to deploy our troops does not mean they drop off the face of the earth, or just because we are playing things close to the vest does not mean we don't have the winning hand. The power is still there, and honestly for an isolationist policy to work you either have to be small enough that no one cares or big enough that no one would want to pick a fight with you. As obviously the former is not the case, the latter would be the only option.
You also mention China as if they are the anti-christ. Why should we not side with China? Why would them coming to power be such a bad thing? We are stuck in a rut with firm ties to certain nations that while they can be counted on, are just as much of a liability as an asset. Choosing allies based on tradition and not tactics is a scary proposition.
You gotta pick one or the other. Even if we held back, it wouldn't mean Russia or China would.CameronPoe wrote:
Neither thanks. They aren't all that different really.Chrisimo wrote:
Well, ask yourself if you'd rather be 'governed' by the US or by Russia.
With Putin running things (and yes, he's really the one running things still), they are basically a modernized version of Soviets. It's like how China is no longer Communist in economy but it is Communist in leadership.TrollmeaT wrote:
I would like to think of our countries as allies especially since we send huge aid packages over to them. I believe ayn would protect property rights even in this situation because without that you can have no freedom. They are russians now not, soviets & she was a russian that loved america.Turquoise wrote:
Uh... Russia isn't exactly an ally of ours, although we had been trying to become more congenial until Putin started really escalating his powermongering.TrollmeaT wrote:
Doesn't Russia have the property rights? The population of South Ossetia is 90% Russian & doesn't want to be Georgian no matter how kool their flag is. I think the US and everyone else needs to mind their own business. Georgia started it & now Russia's ending it. Russia is our ally as well, we should be the mediator in between the two not screaming & pointing fingers at Russia.
I'm surprised you would advocate letting Russia do its thing though. Wasn't Ayn Rand fiercely in favor of containing the influence of the Soviets?
Don't be such a drama queen. The U.S. doesn't have such a stunning report card across time either, and we have certainly have had allies that have done worse. We have proved more than once that our tactical goals are more important than who we happened to be working with.Turquoise wrote:
Because China makes us look like the Boy Scouts by comparison when it comes to ethics. They're not the antichrist, but it's close enough for me.
Yes, but we never had a "Great Leap Forward" period. We also never had a "Cultural Revolution" period. We also never had a Tiananmen Square-like incident, although the Kent State shootings were pretty bad in their own right.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't be such a drama queen. The U.S. doesn't have such a stunning report card across time either, and we have certainly have had allies that have done worse. We have proved more than once that our tactical goals are more important than who we happened to be working with.Turquoise wrote:
Because China makes us look like the Boy Scouts by comparison when it comes to ethics. They're not the antichrist, but it's close enough for me.
The Tuskegee experiments were pretty bad, but they paled in comparison to the organ harvesting against the Falun Gong.
The point is... every piece of dirt you can find on us can be topped by something China did to others or to its own people. Also, the time period is different. Most of the heinous things our government has done aren't so recent as the Chinese ones.
So, I'm not being a drama queen. I'm being accurate.
We're still Machiavellian, but we're less despicable about it than they are.
omfgM.O.A.B wrote:
There's something really bizarre going on here, these Turkish journalists were fired on, then arrested and four Israelis journalists were robbed by Russian troops.
How old were we last birthday? 232?Turquoise wrote:
Yes, but we never had a "Great Leap Forward" period. We also never had a "Cultural Revolution" period. We also never had a Tiananmen Square-like incident, although the Kent State shootings were pretty bad in their own right.Flaming_Maniac wrote:
Don't be such a drama queen. The U.S. doesn't have such a stunning report card across time either, and we have certainly have had allies that have done worse. We have proved more than once that our tactical goals are more important than who we happened to be working with.Turquoise wrote:
Because China makes us look like the Boy Scouts by comparison when it comes to ethics. They're not the antichrist, but it's close enough for me.
The Tuskegee experiments were pretty bad, but they paled in comparison to the organ harvesting against the Falun Gong.
The point is... every piece of dirt you can find on us can be topped by something China did to others or to its own people. Also, the time period is different. Most of the heinous things our government has done aren't so recent as the Chinese ones.
So, I'm not being a drama queen. I'm being accurate.
We're still Machiavellian, but we're less despicable about it than they are.
Very true, Flaming. I take back a lot of what I said about China. They're ok as a country. Just ask Uzique.
I seem to be parodied as the Commie-scum on these Forums, but really being objective and considering no single country as perfect is my crime.
Because I can draw direct comparisons and see historical examples of other world states acting in the same way as modern China, this makes me a target of derision and ridicule. Well that's great for you Yanks, but it's not so great for breaking the common stereotype and perception that you're all ignorant and indoctrinated by a 'free' and democratic society. Oh the lulz.
/sigh.
Because I can draw direct comparisons and see historical examples of other world states acting in the same way as modern China, this makes me a target of derision and ridicule. Well that's great for you Yanks, but it's not so great for breaking the common stereotype and perception that you're all ignorant and indoctrinated by a 'free' and democratic society. Oh the lulz.
/sigh.
Last edited by Uzique (2008-08-16 13:47:13)
libertarian benefit collector - anti-academic super-intellectual. http://mixlr.com/the-little-phrase/
No Uzique, we're apparently so ignorant that we need you to teach us more about China, Russia, or any other country that we mistakenly see as corrupt or somewhat dictatorial. Keep fighting the good fight.
For example, please explain how Russia's invasion of Georgia is actually a justified thing or perhaps even good.
For example, please explain how Russia's invasion of Georgia is actually a justified thing or perhaps even good.