Russia ''invades'' Georgia

conceited

I think your throwing around that word very lightly.
Neutral has many meanings. Are we neutral when you have american war planes refuelling in our airports on the way to an illegal war? Are we neutral when we have other countires citizens on rendition flights?

Overheal

Sand wrote: »

Our neutrality is based on our location and the expectation the British, French and Germans will defend us if anything serious goes wrong, as they cant afford not to defend us. So best of both worlds - guaranteed security, AND a moral high horse to ride on whilst sheltering under the the security umbrella of our war mongering EU neighbours. Of course, theyre sheltering under the security umbrella of their war mongering US allies.

Georgians lack of neutrality is based on their location and their expectation the Russians will threaten their sovereignty. Which they have. If South Ossestian sovereignty over-rides Georgian sovereignty is a matter of.....vigorous....debate lately, though it seems the Russians have delivered some compelling points in favour of South Ossetias independance.

At the risk of sounding anal,

You aren't a member of NATO. Meaning, you aren't obliged to help anyone else the hell out when they are down/invaded. But, other NATO countries (ie. your neighbours UK, France and Germany) are NATO allies and yes as a matter of geography will feel quite compelled to pull your asses out of the fire should you get invaded (in which I understand your heroic battlepan is simply to surrender and await allied assistance)

Really, it just sounds exploitative to me. You will gladly accept assistance but will provide close to none. But in advance of my next reply: kudos for the refueling.

conceited wrote:

Are we neutral when you have american war planes refuelling in our airports on the way to an illegal war? Are we neutral when we have other countires citizens on rendition flights?

Despite my now-feelings on the Iraq war, you also have to further acknowledge US influence in Ireland. Namely, protection - I mean, you are completely blanketed by NATO countries, and a large portion of that is the United States (unless Mexico decides to invade you - which they wont :rolleyes:) as well as the dozens of Multi-Nationals that help drive your economy. I'm not saying Irish don't help the US but you have to understand ours is a symbiotic relationship. I'm sure its at least part of the reason our US Ambassador was able to sway the Irish Gov't on the refueling Op'.

edit: I don't know. Is it war mongering if you install a locally run government? Isn't that liberation? But please: thats another topic for another thread.

Also regarding Georgia there was a leak hereabouts (ill have to go find it again) that some Georgian's actually blame the current administration for the invasion, but again, I'll have to do some proper looking into that to see if those aren't just the pro soviet activists saying that.

sink

Overheal wrote: »

edit: I don't know. Is it war mongering if you install a locally run government? Isn't that liberation?

I agree with pretty much everything else you said but this. If you look back at history the Soviets did the exact same thing in Easter Europe. They drove out the Nazis set up locally run communist governments and stationed permanent red army bases all across the region and they called it liberation. Now i'm not saying the US is the Soviet Union but lets not judge the success/failure of Iraq and Afghanistan until the cake is cooked.

Overheal wrote: »

Also regarding Georgia there was a leak hereabouts (ill have to go find it again) that some Georgian's actually blame the current administration for the invasion, but again, I'll have to do some proper looking into that to see if those aren't just the pro soviet activists saying that.

From what I've heard there are many who question Saakashvili's judgement in choosing to assault South Ossetia. He is probably experiencing a bump in popularity due to nationalistic feelings riding high at the moment. But as the dust settles over the next few months I wouldn't be surprised if there is a serious challenge to his leadership from within.

Manic Moran

conceited wrote: »

I think your throwing around that word very lightly.
Neutral has many meanings. Are we neutral when you have american war planes refuelling in our airports on the way to an illegal war? Are we neutral when we have other countires citizens on rendition flights?

Yes, as long as no preferential treatment is given to any country over any other country. When was the last time Ireland refused a stop-over from any country on the grounds that it didn't like where it was going or what it did when it got there? Bear in mind Shannon has been a stopover for West and East way back to mid-Cold War.

NTM

conceited

Manic my response wasn't for you .
Overheal you talk aload of bollocks.

Playboy

Overheal wrote: »

edit: I don't know. Is it war mongering if you install a locally run government? Isn't that liberation? But please: thats another topic for another thread.

A puppet governmnet you mean .. a common imperialist tactic that the US learned from our friends the British

Overheal

conceited I politely request you re-think your statements or support them with substance.

Playboy: The Iraqi Government was democratically elected and the United States can no longer prop it up financially - the US troops WILL be pulling out by the end of 2011. It will be up to the Iraqis to support themselves at that stage (although admittedly "The deal would leave thousands of U.S. troops inside Iraq in supporting roles, such as military trainers, for an unspecified time." :rolleyes:). Even if we have been stringing the government along, time will tell. Personally I don't know one way or the other, I am just a citizen, and was only 15 when we invaded Iraq so what do I know.
However I don't see how you link the British to this at all. 800 years, bla bla bla it really makes no impact on these affairs.

Sink: thanks, thats one of the thought provoking views I was after.

conceited

My statment is fine thanks.

Overheal

conceited wrote: »

My opinion is fine thanks.

fixed it for you.

Manic Moran wrote:

When was the last time Ireland refused a stop-over from any country on the grounds that it didn't like where it was going or what it did when it got there? Bear in mind Shannon has been a stopover for West and East way back to mid-Cold War.

News to me, but yes I was also aware you treated Nazi-pilot POWs kindly enough during the London Bombings. Though was that because they were bombing London? :pac:

conceited

Overheal wrote: »

fixed it for you.

Thats lovely.

Overheal

Manic Moran wrote:

Article is only partially correct, in that it implies that the US's military relationship with Georgia is a result of the Global War on Terror. Ever since the break-up of the Soviet Union, far longer than the GWOT, the US Military has involved itself in the State Partnership Programme. Basically every State (Except, for some reason, Idaho) has partnered with another country and has been working to train up and upgrade their forces. Initially the only partner countries were former Soviet states, but the SPP currently involves countries from around the globe. Generally the more high-profile the State, the nicer the country one gets partnered with. My last State, California, had Ukraine. D.C. is partnered with Jamaica. (Surprise, surprise. I wouldn't mind a tour there). My current State, Nevada, works with Turkmenistan. Joy. Georgia, well, that was a no-brainer. Georgia (State) got Georgia (Country). Indeed, at the end of July, only a week or two before this kicked off, over a thousand Georgians (State) were involved in a large military exercise in Georgia (Country).

Where can I look at that information? Who does South Carolina sponsor?

brianthebard

Overheal wrote: »

fixed it for you.News to me, but yes I was also aware you treated Nazi-pilot POWs kindly enough during the London Bombings. Though was that because they were bombing London? :pac:

by kindly,do you mean handing them over to the allies to be interned?

SeanW

Manic Moran is right, Ireland allowed the Soviet Union to use Shannon as a stopover during the Cold War. From Wikipedia.

Shannon Airport also has a history of foreign military use. A large part of its business is military stopovers, currently almost all American; however the airport was also frequently used by the Soviet military until the 1990s.

I rather wonder sometimes if the "US out of Shannon" and "Protect Our Neutrality" brigade were out taking pickaxes to Soviet military aircraft and yelling "Bolshies out of Shannon" in the 1980s. Somehow I doubt it.

conceited

The "US out of Shannon" and "Protect Our Neutrality" brigade are mostly weed smoking college kids Sean.Whats your point?

Overheal

brianthebard wrote: »

by kindly,do you mean handing them over to the allies to be interned?

erm...I meant the tea and the bandages really

Sand

You aren't a member of NATO. Meaning, you aren't obliged to help anyone else the hell out when they are down/invaded. But, other NATO countries (ie. your neighbours UK, France and Germany) are NATO allies and yes as a matter of geography will feel quite compelled to pull your asses out of the fire should you get invaded (in which I understand your heroic battlepan is simply to surrender and await allied assistance)

Really, it just sounds exploitative to me. You will gladly accept assistance but will provide close to none. But in advance of my next reply: kudos for the refueling.

Oh yeah, its totally cynical. Essentially Ireland cant defend itself - the air corp is a collection of trainer aircraft and air taxis for politicians [ any time Irish airspace would need protecting, the RAF would have to be called in reality], the navy is small and effectively limited to fisheries regulation and monitoring drug smuggling, and the armies main experience is in UN peacekeeping operations and training and equipment is aimed at that.

If Ireland was to take serious responsibility for its own defence it would have to look at investing more in the military, and looking to join NATO.

However, the "cute whoor" mentality means the solution is to rely on geography - realistically, no one is going to invade us from the west, and if anyone comes from the east, theyre going to have to get through NATO first anyhow. Security, no cost, and we can ride around on our moral high horse called "Neutrality" criticising others for not being as fortunate as us and having to attend to realistic security demands.

Are we neutral when you have american war planes refuelling in our airports on the way to an illegal war? Are we neutral when we have other countires citizens on rendition flights?

We have never been neutral - we have just never been willing to actually openly pick a side, prefering the wink and nod approach to one side, whilst shrugging our shoulders to the others saying "Sorry, we are neutral"

I have never seen a good reason for stopping the US from using Shannon for refueling. The no cost to us, if anything its an economic boon for Shannon airport, and it assists the US, a country we are supposed to be friendly with.

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

I have never seen a good reason for stopping the US from using Shannon for refueling. The no cost to us, if anything its an economic boon for Shannon airport, and it assists the US, a country we are supposed to be friendly with.

a country that is torturing people all over the world, potentially innocent people too..

Sand

a country that is torturing people all over the world, potentially innocent people too..

Or...A country we are friendly with, a country that is fighting terrorist warlords in Afghanistan and supporting the democratically elected, UN recognised government of Iraq.

The US have investigated, tried and convicted cases of torture already - I dont see any significant change in the policy.

conceited

Would that be the same terrorist warlords who wiped out opium production to nill by 2001. In 2007 it's at a record high. Isn't it evident around the city of dublin you idiot.

Kama

Of course, anyone suggesting restoring the flow of heroin from Afghanistan should move directly to CT, not passing Go; its just a coincidence!

However Sand, I think your sentence needs the qualifier: 'both fighting (and supporting) terrorist warlords in Afghanistan.' But the current regime are narco-terrorists. The 'he may be a sonofabit(h, but he's our sonofab1tch' doctrine still seems to apply.

The US have investigated, tried and convicted cases of torture already - I dont see any significant change in the policy

Precisely. The policy of torture still stands, and a few grunts were thrown to the wolves. Philip ZImbardo of the STanford Prison Experiment argued at their trial, that the responsibility was systemic and policy based, rather than individual; bad barrels, not bad apples. The turn to torture alienated many who considered themselves friends of America.

Manic Moran

Overheal wrote: »

Where can I look at that information? Who does South Carolina sponsor?

Hmm. Nobody. They apparently join Idaho in the ranks of the un-partnered. Wiki says there are currently seven unpartnered States. North Carolina's got Moldova, so I don't see SC as being overly jealous. Means that Ireland still has a slot, if they're interested!

NTM

Sand

Conceited

Would that be the same terrorist warlords who wiped out opium production to nill by 2001. In 2007 it's at a record high. Isn't it evident around the city of dublin you idiot.

0/

Kama

However Sand, I think your sentence needs the qualifier: 'both fighting (and supporting) terrorist warlords in Afghanistan.' But the current regime are narco-terrorists. The 'he may be a sonofabit(h, but he's our sonofab1tch' doctrine still seems to apply.

Not really - it is a campaign directed against terrorist warlords; those involved in the training, support and launching of international terrorist movements hostile to the west, namely AQ.

Trying to wage a war on drugs as well - well it would be nice, but effectively the NATO forces werent sent in to combat the drug trade. Trying to burn crops whilst the locals are almost totally reliant on them for income isnt going to assist in the hearts and minds campaign. If and when the Afghan government is able to effectively extend its authority over the entire country then it can deal with the drugs production. Or not.

Anyway - miles off topic at this point.

Precisely. The policy of torture still stands, and a few grunts were thrown to the wolves. Philip ZImbardo of the STanford Prison Experiment argued at their trial, that the responsibility was systemic and policy based, rather than individual; bad barrels, not bad apples. The turn to torture alienated many who considered themselves friends of America.

Apart from investigating and convicting those guilty of torture what else is there the US administration can effectively do? What message is lost in cases like Abu Gharib where the tormentors of prisoners are described in overwhelmingly negative terms, arrested, charged and convicted?

Sure, theres a systematic responsbility to some degree, but the system is discouraging such acts - Abu Gharib was reported and investigated purely by the US military, it wasnt a case of a policy being discovered by some daring do freelance reporter.

Anyway, were miles off topic - the whole neutrality tangent comes from the reality that its not realistic for Georgia to hope claimed neutrality will protect it from an aggressive Russia that has actively encouraged and supported seperatist movements in its territory even before the recent war.

The most amusing thing I read recently was an interview with the Georgian defence ministry where he claimed Georgia was taken totally by surprise by the Russian response. They never imagined the Russians would get involved. What they expected the Russians to do escapes me....

Manic Moran

brianthebard wrote: »

by kindly,do you mean handing them over to the allies to be interned?

Ireland kept them. There was an internment camp in the Curragh, where both Allies and Axis personnel were kept. The horrible movie "The Bryll Cream Boys" was based on this really quite bizarre situation where the prisoners were allowed out on day passes to the races, cinema, etc, but were expected to try to escape from the camp through the guards at night.

Look for a book by a Canadian man whose father was interned there, I saw it at Waterstone's last time I was in Dublin. Called "Grounded in Eire." Quite well researched, it had pictures and scanned documents from the Army Records.

[Edit]: Google Books has it, you can read part online at http://books.google.com/books?id=ykyTyJNcQ5QC&dq=grounded+in+eire&pg=PP1&ots=S9g5fEqjdb&sig=iEIr9uSMhJQP1DPUx5nzqZOg4Yw&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=1&ct=result#PRA1-PR9,M1

Of course, as time progressed, the Irish were less rigorous about interning the Allied personnel, who often found themselves across the Northern Irish border.

NTM

conceited

Perhaps if the west stayed out of other peoples countires they would be doing ok.

Overheal

Sure thing I'll remember to tell them that the next time there's a D-day landing and a bunch of Foreign scientists trying to craft the power of the atom into a bomb.

But back to Georgia.. the news seems to be reporting the Russians are pulling back into South Ossettia and Azkhaban or whatever its called and that Georgia's membership into NATO is now being expedited.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/24/world/europe/24georgia.html?ref=world
http://www.reuters.com/article/worldNews/idUSLN27599620080823

conceited

Only for the Foreign scientists you wouldn't have a country.:D I.E The germans....
Oh yes and the russians never used the bomb on japan

Overheal

The United States is a nation of immigrants! Oh no you caught me!
The Russians didn't test their first nuclear prototype until 4 years after Hiroshima. But please, lets get back to the here and now. Glad to see Russia isn't pulling a Poland.

conceited

As I said you were the only empire to use it on civilians or anyone else.

In 7 years.
You invaded 2 sovereign countries.
You ended the lives and seriously injured, close to a million men,women and children.
You aquired 783 billion barrels of oil.
Your surrounding russia with missiles.
You install puppet goverments around russia.
You have 730 odd army bases throughout the world.
You have 2.5 million troops in other peoples land.
You kidnap people in other countries, throw them in prisons and torture them without a fair trial.

# 1999
Bumper opium crop of 4,600 tons in Afghanistan. UN Drug Control Program estimates around 75% of world's heroin production is of Afghan origin.

# 2000
Taliban leader Mullah Omar bans poppy cultivation in Afghanistan; United Nations Drug Control Program confirms opium production eradicated.

# July 2001
Portugal decriminalizes all drugs for personal consumption.

# Autumn 2001
War in Afghanistan; heroin floods the Pakistan market. Taleban regime overthrown.

# October 2002
U.N. Drug Control and Crime Prevention Agency announces Afghanistan has regained its position as the world's largest opium producer.

September 2006
The head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime reports that Afghanistan's harvest in 2006 will be around 6,100 metric tons of opium - a world record. This figure amounts to some 92% of global opium supply.

# August 2007
Afghanistan's poppy production rises an estimated 15 percent over 2006. Afghanistan now accounts for 95 percent of the world's opium poppy crop, a 3 percentage point increase over last year. The US State Department's top counternarcotics official Tom Schweich claims that Afghanistan is now "providing close to 95 percent of the world's heroin".

This is all fact!, not opinion.

Don't even bother trying to glaze over what i said with a silly "Oh no you caught me!" remark.

sink

The Taliban on the other hand had our best interests at heart when they banned opium production.

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2004/jan/21/20040121-101235-9084r/

Mr. Charles said a Taliban order in 2000 banning the cultivation of opium as "un-Islamic" was most likely a public-relations ploy that allowed drug traffickers in that country to stockpile supplies of opium and boost its price.

conceited

If your unable to follow my post maybe I will guide you through it?

Year Cultivation in hectares Production (tons)
1994 71,470 3,400
1995 53,759 2,300
1996 56,824 2,200
1997 58,416 2,800
1998 63,674 2,700
1999 90,983 4,600
2000 82,172 3,300
2001 7,606 185
2002 74,000 3400
2003 80,000 3600
2004 131,000 4200
2005 104,000 3800
2006 165,000** 6100**

GTFO

In 2008 it's gone up to 9,000 tonnes.

My source is the united nations, yours is a newspaper who sells wars.....