Determinado

What's going on over there in Georgia?
Why are the Russians not leaving as they promised, and why did they push into Georgia just like that?

Are we facing another cold war? Who else is going to get involved in the conflict? Ukrain already let the world know they support Georgia, Sarkozy said he would help Russia a bit if they didn't leave themselves, and the USA, well the USA aren't saying much, propably because it's not a fun place to go (unlike oilfrenzy afghanistan-iraq-etc)

What is your opinion on this?

SpoonMan999

First off, don't go there with the oil thing...you don't live here and your media is more biased than our own liberal media.

Secondly, we aren't involved because we don't want to risk a war with Russia. We are trying to negotiate peacefully.

Thirdly, Georgia struck first.

And lastly, I feel Russia is still pressing on because they have delusions of rebuilding the Soviet Union. They want to be feared and powerful again.

__________________

"I'm not a geek, I'm just coolness challenged."

Obfuscate

1.) Putin and his ultra nationalistic goons believe the falling of the Soviet Union was the greatest disaster of the 20th century and hence should be reinstated.

2.) You really should educate yourself a little more in regard to oil and pipelines and such because you would be amazed to find out that while Georgia has no oil of its own a significant oil pipeline from Asia runs through it and there by bypassing Russia. Something some believe Russia sees as a slight. Georgia: Europe fears for oil supply as clash threatens pipeline - Times Online

3.) The presidential candidates have said plenty regarding Russia/Georgia but the end decision is up to Bush and he is being fairly soft about the whole thing in an attempt to avoid WWIII or the New Cold War.

__________________
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "

Frai7ty

And lets not ignore the fact that places that Russia are in, are wanting to break away from Georgia, and that they are defending civilians....

__________________

Bloodangel26

The first time I heard about this I thought it was Georgia the state and I was all like "WHAT THE ****!? HAV A NAP DEN FIRE ZE MISSILES!" But then I found out it wasn't and then I didn't care anymore.

Also, what Spoon said.

Determinado

Okay points ;-)

1) The USA is so liberal it's controlled by the elite. Just the way the election campaigns are funded by the largest companies shows just how liberal the USA really is;

And who-oh-who would have made the fake video where Bin Laden admits being the mastermind of the 9/11 attacks?
Not convinced by the video itself? What about the FBI website:
Most Wanted Terrorist - Usama Bin Laden

What is he wanted for? THE AUGUST 7, 1998, BOMBINGS OF THE UNITED STATES EMBASSIES IN DAR ES SALAAM, TANZANIA, AND NAIROBI, KENYA

Osama Bin Laden isn't that important because the special unit that was searching for him was disbanded just a bit over 2 years ago now: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/wa...rssnyt&emc=rss

Could anyone give me one good reason why Osama wouldn't be searched for the 9-11 attacks, the most known terrorist attack in human history?

2) I know there's an important pipeline, but it's more important for Russia than it is for the US. But let's not talk about oil since that has to do with the US rather than with Russia-Georgia.

3) 'Georgia struck first', are you going to tell me Russia wants to go to South-Ossetia to be a hero and break free the seperatists there oppressed by the Georgian government?
Those tanks that are now in Georgia come straight from Chechnya where the Russians are oppressing seperatists for over 10 years!
Chechnya is a place where Chechnyans are murdered, tortured, raped, abused by Russians and many people who could escape the region have serious psychological traumas from it.

erizoe

Let's also not forget that Russia blew up the **** out of more than one Georgian city.

also, what spoon said =p

Obfuscate

What? So you blame liberalism for the Unites States actions? I think you misunderstand what liberalism means in the US. Its the hard line speak softly carry a big stick conservatives that push for military action and hard sanctions against countries who act in a manner deemed "wrong" or detrimental to US foreign interests. Its the liberals who want to sit down with every despot in the world and have tea and crumpets and wait as long as possible, aka until it all comes to a boiling point, to take any action that might deter the despots from their evil ways.

Osama is an issue separate from the Georgian-Russia issue and deserves a thread of its own. I will concede that the near complete halt for the search for Osama is a serious blunder by the Bush administration and will probably color his entire administration as a failure in regards to the fight against terrorism. But who knows it hasn't really seemed to hurt Bill Clintons administration to badly yet.

Not really. That pipeline brings oil from Asia to ports to be exported to the US and would cause a serious problem if ever shut off. It would be a huge barganing chip for Russia if they took control of it. Hence having to do with the Georgian-Russia conflict.

I'm not going to try and win the who started it argument because it doesn't really matter. If Georgia started then I think Russia has shown fairly well what happens to those who try and bully it, especially those much weaker than it. If Russia started it then they need to be punished by the global community and smacked back into their place so they don't try it again, at least for a while.

__________________
"One murder makes a villain, millions a hero. "

Ares

took the words out of my mouth.
Georgia started it first now everyone is on Russias ass...
Nothing will happen...

__________________

Determinado

I completely disagree that Georgia started it. They were fighting seperatists in their state, not comparable to what Russia is doing in Chechnya. Russia has nothing to do with this yet they went to fight Georgia on its own territory and advanced FAR behind the province of South-Ossetia.

The thing about Osama is to show just how liberal the US is. There are tons of pages that question 9-11 in a very valid way. There never came an answer to any of these things, and I think it's the least they can do just to show that they even care about 9-11. The reason they don't give answers is because the truth would really hurt.

It's mainly an answer to
"your media is more biased than our own liberal media."
Your media is not liberal and only unorganised media can be liberal. Reporters working on their own, not funded, not connected to anything, only those can be really liberal. In the US you have quite the opposite, and patriotism is one of the holiest things it seems. The way FOX News reported about the Iraqi war was as if it was an action-hero show. They spent 1 hour each day to the Monica Lewinsky affair, boycotting Bill Clinton and asking for him to quit his job as president.

Later they spread the news that George Bush had won the elections, weeks before the final results were known. Who had the brilliant idea to spread this news even before all the results were in? John Prescott Ellis. Google him if you don't know him, I know George Bush won't google him. The CEO, biggest shareholder and founder of FOX is Rupert Murdoch, and although not on the English wiki (or not so clearly), he's very often seen as a very good friend of the republican party.

Also in 2003 they did some research on news channels; watchers of Fox News Channel didn't come to the true conclusions as much as watchers of other channels. 33% of FNC's watchers understood that they had found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Only 20% of the watchers of other channels thought this, and only 10% of the readers of written media thought this.

Although mainstream media can never be really liberal, I think Belgian media is a lot more liberal than it is in the US. In fact I think Al Jazeera could well be more neutral than CNN/FOX

Mathalamus

well.. i was kinda hoping for russia to win and put the small country that cant even maintain its own government under military rule (just look at the sepratist factions.. pathetic.)

SpoonMan999

Woah woah.

First, I never said Georgia started the whole mess. I said they attacked first, neither of them helped stop it from happening and therefor they are both to blame for the outbreak in violence.

Second, I think Russia was right in taking action to remind people that they wont just lay down and let people walk all over them...However, they have gone too far and need to back off.

Third, you clearly don't watch our networks. Fox is about the only right-wing channel out there. CNN I've always known as the Clinton News Network. If our news were so conservative then why are the biggest newspapers in the country all sucking Obama's ****? And why has CNN given so much coverage of every little slip that George Bush makes in a speech yet they miss the Obama blunders like, "it's always a bad idea to say always or never." or (Replying to a question about what he plans to do about the oil crisis.) "Well, if everyone just made sure their tires were inflated properly we would be fine" (Not the exact quotes but I'm going off of memory here.)

__________________

"I'm not a geek, I'm just coolness challenged."

Determinado

Did I say they were conservative? They're just very very politically inspired, or real biased media

from:
You just confirmed now that the media in the US isn't liberal at all, far from unbiased.

But you do know that South-Ossetia is not in Russia right? I mean the Russians had nothing to do with it, so they weren't 'walking over the russians' or something.

I find it quite shocking that the world has allowed Russia to keep its presence in Chechnya for so long, after all the scandals that leaked of their soldiers abusing, raping, killing, torturing and destroying the homes of innocent people.

SpoonMan999

I am aware of this. What I meant is when someone attacks them they wont just take it and do nothing.

The sad truth is Russia is too powerful to risk war with. We would probably get support from many nations if we went in to stop these atrocities but Russia may retaliate in a large way and launch World War III.

__________________

"I'm not a geek, I'm just coolness challenged."

Determinado

Yeah it's just that no one says something about Chechnya (especially now, it's like it's over but it isn't) and they are talking about Iran while Iran can't be blamed for wanting nuclear technology. They can't even be blamed for wanting WMD because the world failed Iran hard by supplying Iraq with the chemicals that 'Chemical Ali' used to do the most horrible things.

Mathalamus

russia? too powerful? im pretty sure they dont have a lot of military and nukes.. well no ones stupid to use em

SpoonMan999

They still have a large military force. As far as nukes we're still not sure how many they have left if any.

__________________

"I'm not a geek, I'm just coolness challenged."

pepereina1

I'd say its going to take quite a long time to resolve. Basically Russia has been dying for an excuse to flex some muscle as more and more of their previous territories governments become more and more American-friendly.

They manipulated Mikheil Saakashvili into striking first against the rebels and no have the moral high ground they desired.Don't think they'll be leaving any time soon....

Determinado

Actually looking it up results in the general rumour that Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US. One of the sources I found stated Russia has ~5000 more nuclear heads than the US, but ~3000 less deliverable. Needless to say, that's a hell lot and 10 nukes would kill us all propably. (not because of the direct firepower, but the nuclear aftermath with the wind spreading the toxic all over the world)

tranquill

Russia-Georgia conflict created a big headache for Israel which armed and trained Georgians for years - and now suddenly Russians threaten retaliation by supplying S-300 SAM batteries to Syria. Here is what a prominent Israeli analyst says: samsonblinded.org/blog/on-russia-georgia-and-israel.htm