Russia ''invades'' Georgia

Manic Moran

conceited wrote: »

In 7 years...

<snip list>

You're just jealous, aren't you? Ireland could never manage that list. Heck, managing just two of them is probably beyond Ireland's capability. (I figure you could probably manage the kidnapping bit had you a mind to do so)

NTM

RedPlanet

sink wrote: »

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/

Your refutation of conceited's point is a soundbite from the US State Department?
Surely they must be a discredited source of information at this day an age.
What, don't remember WMD in Iraq?

Sand

I am just not clear on the relevance of Conceiteds point? So they had some effect on opium production. Does that excuse the nature of their regime? Their support for AQ?

Its a a silly "they made the trains run on time" style point. Who cares?

mike65

Anyway boringly back on topic, everything points to Russia NOT pulling out, merely moving stuff about. Laura Marlows reports from Georgia have been exellent for first hand atmosphere. The pipeline is now effectivly in Moscows hands.

Mike.

RedPlanet

Sand wrote: »

I am just not clear on the relevance of Conceiteds point? So they had some effect on opium production. Does that excuse the nature of their regime? Their support for AQ?

Its a a silly "they made the trains run on time" style point. Who cares?

The point Sands, is that the US appointed administration of Afghanistan is not able or not trying to curtail opium production, while the Taliban had incredible success in short order.

sink

RedPlanet wrote: »

The point Sands, is that the US appointed administration of Afghanistan is not able or not trying to curtail opium production, while the Taliban had incredible success in short order.

By stoning opium farmers do death or hacking their limbs off or some other pleasant activity, is that the sort of behaviour the new Afghan government should emulate?

St_Crispin

Sand wrote: »

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?

You're right, it's well off topic.
But just to set it straight. The soldiers at abu gharib were given small prison sentances, if they were given any at all. Most were dishonorably discharged.
(That of course doesn't have anything to do with gitmo where everything is technically legal. And there's probably hundreds of thousands of threads across the net debating it's morality. So I'm certainly not going to go anywhere with that).
The thing about abu gharib was that it was wrong. Both morally and legally. So there should have been stiffer sentances passed down. In most western countries, if a prison guard had been found to be torturing prisioners, they would have had the book thrown at them.


My two cents on Georgia (just to keep on topic).....
The georgians launched an attack on civilian areas where there were many ethnic russians living. If we imagine the scenario diferently. say there's a Georgian enclave in russia. About 500,000 Georgians living on the russian side of the border.
The russians launch an attack on a town there. They use rockets to bombard the town which of course causes civilian casulties. The georgian government invade to protect the people there. They also invade further to create a buffer zone.
Same scenario, different sides. But in this case the russians are the agressors.
So why are the russians portrayed as the bad guys in the real situation? It's because of better spin by the georgians and the western powers who support them. In the days after the conflict started the Georgians showed the world that they can stage some of the best photo ops in the world.

And of course it's all even more messed up because of a missle instalation in poland. That was a stupid idea in the first place. There are people who think the russians are being too touchy. Just imagine what would happen if the russians installed missles somewhere near the U.S. Say cuba for example..... we can only imagine that scenario

Ironleg

The republics of South-Ossetia and Abkhazia are NOT separatist states like many western media news agencies trying to present it. They have rights for independence from Georgia, since they belong to a different ethnic and nationality groups; they have their own culture, language and traditions. They were forcibly joined to Georgia by Stalin (btw he was Georgian nationality) during the Soviet Era. They have been self proclaimed since 1990 the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the West failed to recognise their independence because they were tight with new established Russia. The Russian Federation consists of many more big and small republics, and the US with NATO is slowly tearing them apart.
On the 8th of August Georgia started the WAR by invading Tskhinvali the capital of South-Ossetia. The military operation lasted for 2 days and left around 2000 people dead mostly woman and children, which were sleeping at their home on the night of the bombardment by Georgian troops. More than 60000 refuges went to Russia and now the biggest camp is based in the town Alagir republic of North-Ossetia Alania.

I don't believe a single word that BBC and REUTERS say in this conflict, very anti-russian news in everything. And small news agencies just paste and copy whatever is given to them.

BTW Sakashvilli's wife is an American and works for CIA, everybody knows that, but nobody talks about that. The objective of the Georgian operation in my opinion was to force Russia into war and then ask protection from the US, also NATO had their military training operation with Georgia troops called "Immediate Response" just half a year ago.

There is no doubt that Unites States wants something from Russia, evidence of that you can see in numerous Hollywood scheduled Colored Revolutions of ex-Soviet republics, Georgia was one of them!
So called "Anti-missile Shield" in Eastern Europe, allegedly build to protect US from Iran and North-Korea.

conceited

I am just not clear on the relevance of Conceiteds point? So they had some effect on opium production. Does that excuse the nature of their regime? Their support for AQ?

Its a a silly "they made the trains run on time" style point. Who cares?

My post was mainly

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.

Not my fault if some clown diverts attention away by posting a silly newspaper article.

If you want to see some news, here you go and it's actually REAL.

And for those clowns on about the us war planes in shannon being ok because we're friends with america.
Pitty we have no back bone.
They don't drop sweets , they do this.

Must warn you it's graphic.
http://iraq-kill-maim.org/kid-kill/kid-kill-01.htm

Not taking away anything from the last few posts.
Go back on topic. My point to show some context.
Cheers.

Ironleg

Why US military warship is bringing aid to Georgia now?
is there no other types of ships in the US that can do this mission!

The Third World War will be launched by United States, but other nations will suffer, as it always been!

Manic Moran

Ironleg wrote: »

Why US military warship is bringing aid to Georgia now?
is there no other types of ships in the US that can do this mission!

Not really, no. The things that make the military good at what it does also tends to apply to disaster relief. US military sealift ships have two large advantages. Firstly, they tend to be faster than their civilian counterparts, being built to get stuff to wars quickly, not being built to be economical with fuel consumption/speed ratios. Secondly, the US military has shiploads of aid just sitting in ports around the world waiting to get sent somewhere. A commerical vessel would never do that: Time spent sitting and waiting is time the ship isn't earning money. Thus a commercial ship would have to sit in port for however long it takes to load up, if it can be commandeered from trade. Whatever the natural disaster, be it a Tsunami in Indonesia or an earthquake in Pakistan, the hated US military is almost always the first large-scale assistance effort to arrive. Funny, that.

In this case, though, the ship to arrive was a destroyer. They're faster than sealift ships by a fair margin and also tend to carry stores of aid, although granted more likely to be of symbolic than any huge swatch of assistance. Plus they do have the advantage that they can take care of themselves should someone decide that aid should not get through.

NTM

Sand

Conceited

Not my fault if some clown diverts attention away by posting a silly newspaper article.

No, Im looking for the relevance of your point on opium production. Stop diverting attention away from that very important point youve made several times. What are you attempting to demonstrate? That we should elect the Taliban to deal with our drug problem? That reducing drug production is more important than Afghans human rights?

Really, who cares if the Taliban made the trains run on time? They were and are scum.

Redplanet

The point Sands, is that the US appointed administration of Afghanistan is not able or not trying to curtail opium production, while the Taliban had incredible success in short order.

So whats your point? That the Taliban were a good government? That you fully support all Taliban policies because their opium programme was so great? That we need to have more Taliban governments? That we need to adapt and introduce Taliban polices to the West to deal with our own drug issues?

Come on out, and make your point.

Ironleg

BTW BTW Sakashvilli's wife is an American and works for CIA, everybody knows that, but nobody talks about that.

Shes actually a Dutch human rights activist by the name of Sandra Roelofs. That might explain why no one talks about her being an American, or her working for the CIA. Her only connection to the US is that she worked in New York for a Dutch law firm & Colombia University for a few years.

You complain about anti-russian sentiment but then make up bull**** like the above. Really sinks your credibility to be honest. Must do better in future.

They have rights for independence from Georgia, since they belong to a different ethnic and nationality groups;

The Russians need to be very careful about championing the independance rights of different ethnic and nationality groups. Russia itself is a patchwork quilt of different ethnic and nationality groups.

As it is, in the soviet era I believe South Ossetia had limited autonomy - post independance Georgia attempted to remove that autonomy....a decade passes, current situation.

So called "Anti-missile Shield" in Eastern Europe, allegedly build to protect US from Iran and North-Korea.

Well, its not going to have a hope in hell of defeating a Russian nuclear strike - the Russians have already proudly announced they have missles which the anti-missile shield cannot defeat.

They unfortunately havent taken that logic one step farther and recognised the missile shield cannot be thus aimed at defeating them.

Russia is simply used to dominating and controlling its neighbours. It despises any independant action by the "near abroad", hence its hostility to its neighbours joining NATO and co-operating with the West as this removes the possibility of Russia threatening and controlling them.

Mike65

Anyway boringly back on topic, everything points to Russia NOT pulling out, merely moving stuff about. Laura Marlows reports from Georgia have been exellent for first hand atmosphere. The pipeline is now effectivly in Moscows hands.

Russia wont pull out until its forced to. Why should it? With Germany, France and Italy all believing appeasment is the best response, NATO represents no threat. As the Russians have already said, NATO laboured for weeks to "deliver a mouse" of a reaction to Russian actions in Georgia.

As for Lara Marlowe, shes probably my most disliked journalist - smug self righteousness practically leaps off the page to strangle you and shes incapable of reporting news, instead delivering her opinions. One point I remember was she was trying to pick an argument with a Russian soldier and her Georgian translator refused to translate her comments and begged her not to provoke the soldiers. And she reported this with pride! Lara Marlowe, defender of the weak, armed only with a laptop and an attitude. She would have shown those Russian bastards if it wasnt for that meddling translator!

mike65

Lara Marlowe is not my fav either but she has stuck me as being a lot more honest that I had expected frankly. I was fully ready for playing down of Russian behavior and to get conspiritoral about the USA as the usual suspects have on this thread.

Mike.

Kevster

People seem to forget that it was firstly Georgia who invaded South Ossetia, which was THEN followed by Russia invading Georgia. Granted, South Ossetia is officially a part of Georgia, but there are many Russians living there and the Georgian army went into their lands aggresively. Also, I have to say that I'm pleased how the Russians are violating the UN peace agreement... ...wasn't it a just few years ago that the USA did the same when invading Iraq?

... ...Be careful who you think is 'good' and who you think is 'evil' in this world.

Kevin

conceited

No, Im looking for the relevance of your point on opium production. Stop diverting attention away from that very important point youve made several times. What are you attempting to demonstrate? That we should elect the Taliban to deal with our drug problem? That reducing drug production is more important than Afghans human rights?

Really, who cares if the Taliban made the trains run on time? They were and are scum.

Oh so you skipped past the 1 million deaths/injuries and 2 invasions/wars and nitpicked the opium part why did you even reply to my post?
And since when is your name sink?

Sand

Lara Marlowe is not my fav either but she has stuck me as being a lot more honest that I had expected frankly. I was fully ready for playing down of Russian behavior and to get conspiritoral about the USA as the usual suspects have on this thread.

True, but its just a different symptom of the same disease. Shes decided who the evil imperialist is and who the weak victim is and shes going to make sure we all agree with her by the end of the article.

Conceited

Oh so you skipped past the 1 million deaths/injuries and 2 invasions/wars and nitpicked the opium part why did you even reply to my post?
And since when is your name sink?

One point at a time - you cant even tell me the relevance of your point on Taliban policies on opium production - There IS a point, isnt there? Until you do I dont see why I should waste time on the rest of your irrelevant distractions.

Why is it that when us IRISH posters criticise Russian action in Georgia that people reply that the US is the bad guy blah blah

like it somehow justifies whatever Russia does? like wtf!

Judgement Day

As someone with more than a passing interest in current affairs I have read a few posts on this thread but life is too short to go through them all. However, despite coming from the far right of Attilla the Hun and believing the saying 'better dead than red' even I can see why the Russian Federation feels that it is being squeezed from all sides by the the ever increasing encroachment of NATO - the US missile shield etc.etc.

When the Iron Curtain came down the West failed to embrace Moscow and bring it in to the mainstream and in doing so sowed the seed for future serious conflict. Why wasn't Russia invited to join the EU before the hotch potch of East European countries such as Poland, Bulgaria etc? Why was it not encouraged to join NATO instead of its vague and ultimately useless status as an observer?

It is a bit rich the West (US in particular) saying that the Russians should get out of Georgia while they are still occupying Iraq and Afghanistan. It all bodes very badly for stability and World peace. One spark and .....

As someone who has grown up with the threat of Nuclear Annialiation for all my life I am heartily sick of all the damn fools (sorry International Statesmen) who have once again cocked up. We had a golden opportunity for a genuine 'New World Order' when the Soviet Union collapsed but nobody had the vision to offer a genuine hand of friendship to Russia which was allowed to wallow in its own problems which inevitably has led to a return of the hard men!

I have two small children and I don't want them growing up, as I have, always looking over their shoulder for mushroom clouds because of posturing by old men who should know better.

As I say life is too short to get into this any further so I will say goodnight and return to my usual threads. :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:

Manic Moran

conceited wrote: »

Oh so you skipped past the 1 million deaths/injuries and 2 invasions/wars and nitpicked the opium part why did you even reply to my post?

The million deaths/injuries (a number I may dispute) caused by the US is pretty irrelevant when discussing the Taliban's merits or otherwise as an Afghan government. I am unaware of any connection between the two.

Is it your contention that the only measure of appropriateness for the governance of Afghanistan is whether or not there is any opiate production? This appears to be your standpoint from the posts I've read so far, and I believe Sand is asking for some justification for this as being your primary criterion.

NTM

Kama

I believe the (off-topoc) point may have been that the 'scum' used be the 'moral equivalents of the founding fathers' and the current 'democratic' regime are heavily implicated in the narcotics trade. Yesterdays freedom fighter is todays terrorist, in a memoryless blink.

Who is 'Bad' at any time seems to shift with the needs of the day, and then 'Oceania was always at war with Eurasia'. A Manichaean approach of 'Good/Bad' necessarily has a short memory, in a shifting pattern of alliances of convenience, and moral outrage seems inappropriate for any of the players in this current 'Great Game'; but the Russian enemy has the advantage of familiarity and nostalgia, a return to old certainties, making it unnecessary to look any further, because 'they are evil'.

This attitude, placing all evil in another, would seem to lead, inevitably, jingoistically, to war. All other questions of blame and morality or legitimacy seem somewhat secondary.

Overheal

Kama wrote: »

I believe the (off-topoc) point may have been that the 'scum' used be the 'moral equivalents of the founding fathers' and the current 'democratic' regime are heavily implicated in the narcotics trade. Yesterdays freedom fighter is todays terrorist, in a memoryless blink.

Who is 'Bad' at any time seems to shift with the needs of the day, and then 'Oceania was always at war with Eurasia'. A Manichaean approach of 'Good/Bad' necessarily has a short memory, in a shifting pattern of alliances of convenience, and moral outrage seems inappropriate for any of the players in this current 'Great Game'; but the Russian enemy has the advantage of familiarity and nostalgia, a return to old certainties, making it unnecessary to look any further, because 'they are evil'.

This attitude, placing all evil in another, would seem to lead, inevitably, jingoistically, to war. All other questions of blame and morality or legitimacy seem somewhat secondary.

Quoted For Truth. Don't forget it was the United States that supplied the Afghans with the weapons they needed to overthrow their Russian invasion during the Cold War. Then of course, we find ourselves invading them for hosting the terrorists that attacked us. So yes sir, QFT.

To be honest though I don't really think either Russia or the United States has the conviction to start a war, knowing it would likely end up in the Winter to end all winters.

GuanYin

Guys, lets keep this discussion on topic and avoid the usual "fog of war" in debating.

Conceited, this is a public board, if you are not willing to accept others responding to your posts, don't post here.

GY - Moderator

genericgoon

Kevster wrote: »

People seem to forget that it was firstly Georgia who invaded South Ossetia, which was THEN followed by Russia invading Georgia. Granted, South Ossetia is officially a part of Georgia, but there are many Russians living there and the Georgian army went into their lands aggresively. Also, I have to say that I'm pleased how the Russians are violating the UN peace agreement... ...wasn't it a just few years ago that the USA did the same when invading Iraq?

... ...Be careful who you think is 'good' and who you think is 'evil' in this world.

Kevin

Actually people should abandon the idea there is any good or bad side in global politics in moralistic terms. There is only good for us and bad for us.

sink

conceited wrote: »

Oh so you skipped past the 1 million deaths/injuries and 2 invasions/wars and nitpicked the opium part why did you even reply to my post?
And since when is your name sink?

What's your boggle with me? I didn't give my views on all your points because I didn't have the time, but that does not mean I skipped over them duck out of difficult questions. You simplified down centuries of history into 7 very simple points that didn't reflect the complex reality. To counter your points it will take much more detail as history and politics are never simple. If you wish to know my entire view on the point you raised here it goes

conceited wrote: »

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

While I generally disagree with the policy of targeting civilians the Empire of Japan is a special case. Japanese civilians had proven to be fanatical in defence of their 'motherland' as evidenced during the invasion of Okinawa.

Japanese civilians had been so brainwashed by their government that they were convinced the Americans were going to torture and kill them and their families. As a result women children and the elderly picked up anything they could use as a weapon and fought to the death or committed suicide. Should the same situation take place during an invasion of mainland Japan the loss of life on both sides of the conflict was estimated to be in the millions.

Facing a catastrophic death toll the US looked for a way to force the end of the war before the planned invasion of Japan. They issued the Potsdam deceleration calling for unconditional Japanese surrender or face "prompt and utter destruction". Due to the Japanese custom of Bushido inherited from the ancient Samurai tradition most Japanese would sooner commit suicide than surrender and so they refused. 11 days later the US carried out its threat and dropped an atomic bomb on Hiroshima followed three days later by Nagasaki. Six days later Japan faced with their own ultimate destruction surrendered.

These are the historic facts of the situation here is what I think could have happened differently. The pursuit of forcing the Japanese to surrender was justified by the catastrophic losses estimated to happen during any attempted invasion of the mainland. Truman and his military advisor judged it would take the nuclear destruction of a Japanese city to force them to surrender. In my judgement there were other options open to them before bombing a city was necessary.

The US did not reveal they had an atomic bomb and if they had, I would speculate that Japan may have taken greater heed of the Potsdam declaration. Perhaps they could have demonstrated the bomb to the Japanese by detonating it over a less populated area. Whether that would have had enough of an impact to cause Japan to surrender is unknown but it would have at least given the US more justification in bombing civilian populated areas. They could also have waited for a longer period of time before dropping the second bomb giving Japan more time to consider surrendering. Using this strategy would have delayed the surrender by possibly a few months and cost additional American casualties.

conceited wrote: »

You invaded 2 sovereign countries.

While Afghanistan was justified for reasons I outlined previously. I have made i quiet clear that I do not think the invasion of Iraq was justified as Iraq had little means of power projection and there was only circumstantial evidence that they possessed WMD's.

The most logical reason behind the invasion of Iraq seems to me the growing threat of an Iran - Syrian alliance that would threaten to upset the balance of powerin the Middle east and put American oil interests under great threat. Iraq is very well strategically placed to counteract the future threat of Iran/Syria.

The neo-cons seemed to believe that they could overthrow Saddam and install a friendly democratic government which would allow them access to their territory. They looked at how superior allied forces so easily overcame the Iraq military in the Gulf war and just applied that to the rest of Iraq. They failed to consider the possibility of an insurgency as evidenced by their lack of post-war planning, this seems incredibly naive to me. To properly contain an insurgency they would have required close to 10 times the amount of boots on the ground than they had planned for, somewhere around 1.5 - 2 million soldiers. They only had 200,000.

conceited wrote: »

You ended the lives and seriously injured, close to a million men,women and children.

The Americans are not directly responsible for the vast majority of those casualties. The post war conflict between rival factions and the lawlessness were the direct cause for the majority of civilian casualties. This is an indirect consequence of the coalitions lack of post-war planning and failure to allocate enough resources.

conceited wrote: »

You aquired 783 billion barrels of oil.

A drop in the ocean in reality, the US alone consumes over 7 trillion barrels a year. The conflict actually had a negative effect on oil supply and market price helping push the US economy into stagnation and possible recession. Besides the actual act of acquiring oil has no moral implications.

conceited wrote: »

Your surrounding russia with missiles.

Surrounding is a bit of an overstatement. They are placing 10 missile interceptors in Poland. In comparison to Russia's estimated nuclear stockpile of 5,000 it's not a lot. Russia could quickly overwhelm the defence system.

conceited wrote: »

You install puppet goverments around russia.

This statement is insulting to former soviet block countries. All of them established their own democratic government with little help in the US and they run their own affairs independently of anyone else. It is their own decision to ally themselves with the west. They sacrificed a lot to gain independence from Moscow and your ignorance would outrage all of them.

conceited wrote: »

You have 730 odd army bases throughout the world.

Most in allied states territory who rely them for defence of their own countries.

conceited wrote: »

You have 2.5 million troops in other peoples land.

Most with the expressed permission of their democratically elected governments.

conceited wrote: »

You kidnap people in other countries, throw them in prisons and torture them without a fair trial.

This I do not agree with. However a lot of the evidence against the US comes from unreliable sources so I would take it with a mountain of salt. But there is concrete evidence that innocents were detained without good evidence that they were involved in any sort of subversive activities.

Playboy

Overheal wrote: »

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.

Depends on your idea of what constitutes a democratic election.

Here is an excerpt from an interview with Noam Chomsy which can be found here

Noam Chomsky: Yes. Then very quickly it turned out that that wasn't the reason of the invasion. The reason was what the President's liberal press calls his 'Messianic Mission' to bring democracy to Iraq and immediately everyone had to leap on the democratisation bandwagon and it began to be described as the most noble war in history and so on and so forth. Well, anyone with a particle of sense would know that you can't take that seriously and, in fact, if you look at the events that followed, it just demonstrated that. The US tried, in every possible way, to prevent elections in Iraq. They offered effort after effort to evade the danger of elections. Finally, they were compelled to accept elections by mass non-violent resistance, for which the Ayatollah Sistani [moderate Shi'ite leader] was a kind of a symbol. Mass outpourings of people demanding elections. Finally, Bush and Blair had to agree to elections. The next step is to subvert them and they started immediately. They're doing it right now. Elections mean you pay some - in a democracy at least - you pay some attention to the will of the population. Well, the crucial question for an invading army is: 'do they want us to be here?' Well, we know the answer to that. The British Ministry of Defence carried out a poll a couple of months ago, it was secret, but it leaked to the British Press - I don't think it's been reported in the US. They found that 82 percent of the population wanted the coalition forces, British and US forces to leave. One percent of the population said that they were increasing security.

Andy Clark: So you see this is a step to set up a sort of puppet government and not something that's really representative of ordinary Iraqis?

Noam Chomsky: That's what they are trying to do, but there's always a conflict about that. Many of the Western backed or Russian or Eastern or other backed tyrants rose up. However, it is as clear as a bell that the US, and Britain behind it, are doing everything they can to prevent a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. And they are being dragged into it step by step. Now there's a good reason why the US cannot tolerate a sovereign, more or less democratic Iraq. We're not allowed to talk about it because there's a party line. The party line we have to rigidly adhere to says you're not allowed to talk about the reasons for invading Iraq. We're supposed to believe that the US would've invaded Iraq if it was an island in the Indian Ocean and its main exports were pickles and lettuce. This is what we're supposed to believe. Now the truth of the matter, obvious to anyone not committed to the party line, is that Iraq has huge oil resources, maybe the second in the world, mostly untapped, that it's right in the middle of the main energy-producing region of the world and that taking control of Iraq will strengthen enormously the US's control over the major energy resources of the world. It will, in fact, give the US critical leverage over its competitors, Europe and Asia, that's Zbigniew Brzezsinski's [President Carter's national Security Adviser] accurate observation. That's the reason. Now suppose that Iraq were to become sovereign and democratic, what would happen? Just think of the policies they would undertake. I mean, we can run through them, it would be a nightmare for the US.

Nodin

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it that when us IRISH posters criticise Russian action in Georgia that people reply that the US is the bad guy blah blah

like it somehow justifies whatever Russia does? like wtf!

Its not that, rather the hypocrisy from the Whitehouse is just rather breathtaking at the moment, even by their standards. Certainly I think most would agree that the Russian reaction was in excess of what was nessecary.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

Why is it that when us IRISH posters criticise Russian action in Georgia that people reply that the US is the bad guy blah blah

like it somehow justifies whatever Russia does? like wtf!

I don't think (or would at least hope) that nobody thinks that the Russians are justified in their actions. I think the point many people are trying to make is that there is no "good" side or "bad" side in this conflict. There are varying shades of grey.

The Georgians invaded South Ossetia hours after signing a cease-fire with them. This was obviously pre-planned and toally out of order.

The Russians booted them out of South Ossetia (fair enough) and then proceeded to encroach on "main-land" Georgia, which was out of order.

The US then sided with the Georgians, completely ignoring what they had done, and condemned the Russians insisting that South Ossetia is actually part of Georgia. This despite the fact that they were more than willing to recognise Kosovos independance. What is the difference between the two after all?

Overheal

besides the fact that Chomsky is an anarchist and a social libertarian, that interview cites no sources: its all opinion.

RedPlanet

What sources are required Overheal?
I remember Ayatollah Sistani and mass protests for elections.
Don't you remember that guy Paul Bremer's general mis-management and delaying elections?

conceited

sink wrote: »

What's your boggle with me? I didn't give my views on all your points because I didn't have the time, but that does not mean I skipped over them duck out of difficult questions. You simplified down centuries of history into 7 very simple points that didn't reflect the complex reality. To counter your points it will take much more detail as history and politics are never simple. If you wish to know my entire view on the point you raised here it goes

Not centuries ,7 years. I've no "boggle" with you, I just think your all one sided.
America is not a "beakon of light" anymore thats my point and the russias aren't the "bad guys either".The only reason their bad is because the likes of sky news says there bad ok.

The reason I brought up Afghanistan opium production is simple.
It will take a brief bit of history.

1750
The British East India Company assumes control of Bengal and Bihar, opium-growing districts of India. British shipping dominates the opium trade out of Calcutta to China.

1767
The British East India Company's import of opium to China reaches a staggering two thousand chests of opium per year.

1773
East India Company assumes monopoly over all the opium produced in Bengal, Bihar and Orissa. Warren Hastings introduces system of contracts. Contracts for dealing in opium were awarded through auction.

1800
The British Levant Company purchases nearly half of all of the opium coming out of Smyrna, Turkey strictly for importation to Europe and the United States. [/SIZE][/FONT]

March 18, 1839
Lin Tse-Hsu, imperial Chinese commissioner in charge of suppressing the opium traffic, orders all foreign traders to surrender their opium. In response, the British send expeditionary warships to the coast of China, beginning The First Opium War.

1841
The Chinese are defeated by the British in the First Opium War. Along with paying a large indemnity, Hong Kong is ceded to the British.

1852
The British arrive in lower Burma, importing large quantities of opium from India and selling it through a government-controlled opium monopoly.

1886
The British acquire Burma's northeast region, the Shan state. Production and smuggling of opium along the lower region of Burma thrives despite British efforts to maintain a strict monopoly on the opium trade.

1910
After 150 years of failed attempts to rid the country of opium, the Chinese are finally successful in convincing the British to dismantle the India-China opium trade.

1950s
U.S. efforts to contain the spread of Communism in Asia involves forging alliances with tribes and warlords inhabiting the areas of the Golden Triangle, (an expanse covering Laos, Thailand and Burma), thus providing accessibility and protection along the southeast border of China. In order to maintain their relationship with the warlords while continuing to fund the struggle against communism, the U.S. and France supply the drug warlords and their armies with ammunition, arms and air transport for the production and sale of opium. The result: an explosion in the availability and illegal flow of heroin into the United States and into the hands of drug dealers and addicts.

1965-1970
U.S. involvement in Vietnam is blamed for the surge in illegal heroin being smuggled into the States. To aid U.S. allies, the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) sets up a charter airline, Air America, to transport raw opium from Burma and Laos. As well, some of the opium would be transported to Marseilles by Corsican gangsters to be refined into heroin and shipped to the U.S via the French connection. The number of heroin addicts in the U.S. reaches an estimated 750,000.[/SIZE][/FONT]

1978
The U.S. and Mexican governments find a means to eliminate the source of raw opium - by spraying poppy fields with Agent Orange. The eradication plan is termed a success as the amount of "Mexican Mud" in the U.S. drug market declines. In response to the decrease in availability of "Mexican Mud", another source of heroin is found in the Golden Crescent area - Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, creating a dramatic upsurge in the production and trade of illegal heroin.

Sept. 13, 1984
U.S. State Department officials conclude, after more than a decade of crop substitution programs for Third World growers of marijuana, coca or opium poppies, that the tactic cannot work without eradication of the plants and criminal enforcement. Poor results are reported from eradication programs in Burma, Pakistan, Mexico and Peru.

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.

2008
Bumper opium crop of 9,000 tons in Afghanistan.

If you haven't noticed this has been going on for hundreds of years and it's not going to change anytime soon.
I could write the same for russia no doubt.
America and the uk just have a better pr manager thats all .They're all scum.

My post is fact, not fiction.