Russia sends forces into Georgian rebel conflict

Vintage, you make an interesting point.

If it weren't the USA using its military might to "help" peoples of the world, who would do it? Russia? China? What would the world be like if it were one of those countries?

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Vintage @ Aug 12 2008, 08:55 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Do the South Ossetians deserve independence? Do you think Georgia is wrong in trying to put down rebellion?

What are your thoughts on Abraham Lincoln's Presidency?</div>

Seems to me it's SO's responsibility to maintain their own independence. Last time we fought a war on those grounds was Vietnam.

Lincoln? He was obsessed with the "house divided" bit more than anything else. He'd have signed any bill or amendment to keep slavery if it meant avoiding the civil war. He didn't free the slaves until 1863, or well into the war.

It's an interesting question about whether a state should be allowed to secede. The constitution is entirely silent on the matter. I'd be inclined to allow it.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (redneck @ Aug 12 2008, 09:29 AM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>Georgia has every right to put down the rebellion. It's their sovergn lands. Most the world sees Ossetia as Georgian territory. The Ossetians do have some autonomy, but in recent weeks they had stepped up the violence.

As for being the police force of the world, only the US can really do it. We're the only one with both the logistics to get it done and the man power to do. China and Russia have the man power, but not the logistics. the UK has the logistics but not the man power. But the problem is everytime the US tries to act as a policing agency the entire world gets pissed off(see Korea, Vietnam, Somalia, Rwanda, Kosovo, Iraq) People want us to change the world to better it, but anytime we try we end up paying for it as those same people turn against us. During the Cold War, the US tried to keep the spread of Communsm under control and did a good job of it, but now all the uneducated idiots sit around and complain about attrocities committed by the US. I'm not saying we dont have our hands drenched in blood, but the things we call attrocities usually tend to be very mild. take the recent torture stuff at Gitmo and Abu Ghrib. By the classical definition there isn't a whole lot of torture going on there, and things like humiliating people isn't really torture. We in the west dont really understand war. It's been so long since we've seen it, and those who have seen it are a small minority. Since the end of WW2, the wars we have fought are miniscule. Vietnam was pretty bloody, but in 20 years 60,000 troops died. That's 3,000 a year or about 8 a day. In the context of warfare, 8 soldiers isn't much considering many armies would consider it a good day to only lose 40. In Iraq there has been 4,000 killed in 5 years. that's about 800 a year and around 2 a day. Not really a blood bath, considering just the union lost 600,000 troops(very conservative estimate) in really 3 years of fighting during the Civil war. that's 410 soldiers a day. In the Iran-Iraq war Iran lost 80,000 soldiers in a 8 year period. that's 10,000 a year and 27 a day.

I know I'm turning human lives into statistics, but it's a simple fact that the infintryman, no matter the era or civilization, is expendible and always has been and always will be.</div>

I tend to take a similar view, though I quibble with your facts (sue me ). We lost 52,000 soldiers in vietnam in just a few years, not 20. Maybe if you count from the first advisors to the very end... But we had 500,000 troops over there in the LBJ years and most of the dying was done in a short period. The ~4K we've lost in Iraq is a puny figure compared to Vietnam or even punier compared to Korea (where 1M+ total died on both sides combined).

We dib't have a draft anymore. Our soldiers are "professional" in every sense of the word.

In a lot of previous wars, no prisoners were taken tho a few of the losers may have successfully ran away and lived. The spoils of war historically have been rape and pillage for the victor.

Our use and emphasis on pinpoint precision munitions is a very humane thing IF we're going to use military force anywhere. We were able to target Saddam's palaces and other strategic targets while minimizing collateral damage (killing of civilians, hitting their houses and businesses).

I really don't get the argument that if we don't abide by the Geneva Conventions, our enemies won't. Ask McCain - he was a POW and tortured for 5+ years.

 

Lost in this discussion is what Putin's ultimate aims are.

All along, he's diplomatically opposed things we consider making the world a better place. From preventing the proliferation of nukes (Iran) to defending nations against rogue missile attacks.

Either he's spanking Georgia for a few bad deeds (bad enough), or he's got much bigger plans.

 

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNew...=22&sp=true

U.S. and Poland sign missile shield deal
Thu Aug 14, 2008 4:10pm EDT

By Gabriela Baczynska

WARSAW (Reuters) - Poland finally agreed on Thursday to host elements of U.S. global anti-missile system on its territory after Washington improved the terms of the deal amid the Georgia crisis.

The preliminary deal was signed by deputy Polish Foreign Minister Andrzej Kremer and U.S. chief negotiator John Rood. It still needs to be endorsed by the Polish parliament.

The signing comes after Prime Minister Donald Tusk had been holding out for enhanced military cooperation with the United States in return for consent to host 10 interceptor rockets at a base in northern Poland.

Washington says the interceptors and a radar in the Czech Republic would form part of a global "missile shield" protecting the United States and its allies from long range missiles that could in the future be fired by Iran or groups such as al-Qaeda.

"We have crossed the Rubicon," Tusk said just before the deal was signed.

"We have finally got understanding of our point of view that Poland, being a crucial partner in NATO and an important friend and ally of the United States, must also be safe."

Officials said the deal included a U.S. declaration that it will aid Poland militarily in case of a threat from a third country and that it would establish a permanent U.S. base on Polish soil in a symbolic gesture underlining the alliance.

"We are comfortable that we negotiated a strong agreement," Rood said. "It elevates our security relationship to a new level."

RUSSIA VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED

If everything goes to schedule, the interceptor base would be ready by around 2012, officials have said. The Czechs have already signed an agreement to host the radar although parliament there must yet ratify it.

Russia has vehemently opposed placing the shield installations in central Europe, saying they would threaten its security and upset the post-Cold War balance of power in Europe.

Moscow has threatened to take retaliatory steps against Poland and the Czech Republic, its former reluctant vassals who are now part of the European Union and NATO.

In the face of Russian opposition, Tusk had argued he could not agree to the shield unless the United States agreed to boost Warsaw's air defenses and enhance mutual military cooperation.

Russia's military action against Georgia strengthened the argument, Tusk said on Tuesday, ahead of the talks this week.

Polish Foreign Minister Radoslaw Sikorski played down the impact of the events in Georgia on the deal, apparently hoping to soften any criticism from Moscow.

In the first sign of Moscow's displeasure, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Thursday cancelled a planned trip to Warsaw in September, Polish diplomats said.

The deal, if approved by parliaments in Prague and Warsaw, will be a rare success for President George W. Bush who has argued it is essential to contain the threat of a potentially nuclear-armed Iran.

Washington hopes the shield might persuade Iran to abandon its nuclear program, although Teheran says it wants to develop nuclear energy only to generate electricity and not to make nuclear weapons.

 

^^^ "rare success for Bush" ?

Just report the damned news, buttholes.

It seems like a remarkable success for the Bush administration.

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MikeDC @ Aug 14 2008, 07:52 PM) <{POST_SNAPBACK}></div><div class='quotemain'>This boils down to something real simple for me. There's not a whole lot, besides jawboning them, that can be done. I don't see any rationale to the sphere of influence argument, and I do see logic in keeping Georgia and it's vital pipelines independent.

But this isn't something our military options can accomplish, so reminding the Russians of stuff like the fact we can put ABMs in Poland is about our best bet.</div>

The next move would be to bring Ukraine into Nato. Would piss the hell out of Russia, and if Russia did attack, all Nato allies would go to war.

This move with Poland is along those lines, just a little less brinksmanship.