Russian attack on country of Georgia
Google has blocked all the map features of the country of Georgia which is currently under attack by the Ruskies. The terrain feature still works there are just no map features.
http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=en&geocode=&q=Russia&ie=UTF8&ll=42.284445,43.260791&spn=5.851508,10.272217&t=h&z=7
A little history of the conflict:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4498709.eceThe conflict is front page news here, but the google angle is new to me, thanks.
Google has blocked all the map features of the country of Georgia which is currently under attack by the Ruskies. The terrain feature still works there are just no map features.
But why? Do they think the Russians will be helpless without Google mapping? Also, the aerial photographs are still there...
But why? Do they think the Russians will be helpless without Google mapping?
I was wondering if they were doing the Russians a favor by taking down the mapping for the Georgian's or if they were doing a favor to the Georgian's by taking it down so the Russians couldn't use it. Maybe they are claming neutrality and taking it down so no one can say that it was avaiable for use on line by either side.
I think that, were I a citizen of a country that relied on Google Maps for its military interventions, I would be very worried.
No doubt, given that, it must not be as an aid to the Russians. But there is a huge portion of the fighting force that is irregular, so it still may be a tool to some.
Maybe they're simply worried about the accuracy. If Google Maps still show a town where there is now a rubble filled crater it might make people wary of trusting it in future.
maybe they just don't want an IOTD of a guy falling off his bicycle while he is distracted by a bomb blast.
How current is that info? I can't believe that anyone on either side is using Google map data for anything.
Depends on who. Any data is better then no data.
Bad data is better than no data?
Is that your final answer?
If it's useful it's not bad data.
Hmm, does bad data get spanked?
It's front page news here too.
This could turn out very badly.
Some very interesting terrain. Looks like a difficult place to fight.
The disputed region in gray, of South Ossetia.
This could be the real goal of the Russian invasion. Map of the Baku-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipelines throught the nation of Georgia
This is getting worse by the minute. WTF people???
Classic, the quick version, it is for the region a big ball of wax. Stalin "gave" Ossetia and Abkhazi two small regions or "countries" to Georgia in the early part of this century. Stalin was originally from Georgia. Fast forward to 1991. Soviet Union falls, a loose federation of 15 different countries from the Baltic's down around to Kazakhstan forms. Georgia is one of these countries. The Ossetians and Abkhazi have wanted to be their own sovereign country, or to be absorbed back into Russia since 91, and there have been separatist issues and rebellion this whole time, with "peacekeeping" forces from Russia on the ground since 91.
Georgia finally tipped the scale in this one, killed a Russian soldier, and pissed of the Russian Bear. In short, and oversimplified maybe, but true. As far as warfare for the region goes....they are a little more morally flexible then us pansies in the west perhaps.
The early part of this century?
Russia's invasion of Georgia is no worse than America's invasion of Iraq. In fact, America's illegal invasion of Iraq is worse. Russia says people in Ossetia are being oppressed and have suffered through atrocities, (kind of like the people of Iraq) so the big military rolls in and kills everyone.
I would be willing to bet the same people who support the war in Iraq are against the actions of Russia when they do something very similar.
Radar, saying our trying to win the GWOT in Iraq as well as elsewhere is illegal has never had the least basis in fact, and I tire of how desperately you try to lie about it. Do you take us for being as bad at foreign policy as yourself, or what?
Congress said to the President, "As CINC, fly at 'em and try and win." That is what the resolution to use military force was, Radar, as is plain to everyone except you and a collection of far-left fascists who desperately want America, and democratic humanity of which we are the spearhead, to lose that their totalitarian dreams may be realized.
You're exceedingly ill-advised to adopt the views of far-left fascists, whose lack of societal success is absolute, whose future is all in the past, and whose dickheadedness was exceeded only by that of the Communists. In other words, no example to follow, no philosophy to adhere to, unless you have but the intellect of a two-year-old bent on world domination if only he could figure out how it was spelled.
Yet it is an example you follow. I call that abominably bad libertarianism -- to insist that totalitarians be left alone rather than be replaced with something more nearly libertarian. What bollocks. Where is your desire to destroy totalitarianism, totalitarians, and tyrants?
It's been cut off, with several other important brain and body parts, it would seem.
A libertarian needs a liberationist mindset to amount to anything.
I don't know whether it's right or wrong for Russia to be invading Georgia or not. I don't really know much more than the basics which is pretty much what Joe shared with us.
I do feel very strongly that if the US insists on injecting themselves in the situation, it's going to end in tears. A river of them.
What I think is most interesting is the timing of the invasion. Who stands to gain by either encouraging or deciding to this invasion? When the eyes of the world are on China, I wonder.
I guess mostly China is probably happy people are talking about some other arseholes instead of Tibet for a while.
The early part of this century?
Sheesh, what year am I in???? Yep good catch. Sorry. Last century.
If you want an accurate look of the current terrain google maps isn't the place to go. At least in my town there are some landmarks on there that are well over a year old so I don't think it is very up to date. Very cool pics however.
I'm drawing the line at Alabama.
They can have Alabama and while they're at it take Arkansas off our hands too.
As usual UG is completely wrong. The President is not commander in chief until called into service by a formal declaration of war. Congress may only make a formal declaration of war when it is in the common defense of Americans. Congress is not allowed to "authorize" the president to make war. They are given no such power.
The war in Iraq is illegal and I'll continue to make that factual statement no matter how much you dislike it.
Libertarianism can not be spread at the point of a gun and your beliefs that it can are directly in contradiction to the words of our founders, and every libertarian author who has ever existed.
This could be the real goal of the Russian invasion. Map of the Baku-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipelines throught the nation of Georgia
Id say thats a definite. Now that they have developed some of their old muscle back, they want to take control of the oil that goes to Europe. The US is in no position to do anything about it. Its not like we can threaten them with anything but talk.
And anyway...The US
did do something very similar..in Iraq. Not that
that very expensive gambit is going to pay off for us...the peak oil and current credit crisis is going to end up doing us serious harm.
As usual UG is completely wrong. The President is not commander in chief until called into service by a formal declaration of war. Congress may only make a formal declaration of war when it is in the common defense of Americans. Congress is not allowed to "authorize" the president to make war. They are given no such power.
One problem and on this one point I concede to Urbane. Since Washington had the Navy attack the Barbary pirates off what's now Libya, just about every US president unilaterally engaged its troops in international conflicts, some that are virtually undeclared wars. Radar, you will have to condemn the whole lot of US presidents who had to contend with a usually indecisive Congress.
What is McCain going to attack Russia with? His false teeth? The only other way is nuke, but you don't think that Mr. 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' would do it, would he?
Radar, is it not crashingly obvious that libertarianism will not occur in the places that need it most until the human obstacles to it that will present themselves are removed? I do not expect all the human obstacles to survive the removal process, nor am I worried at the prospect. Conversions from bad ways to good ways are all the stronger if the stubbornest adherents to the bad ways have gotten killed. Provides motivation for the more pragmatic-minded, don't you know. Once they discover it works, then the conversion really sticks.
The writers you evoke clearly haven't the solution. It's time for new ideas. If, that is, one actually wants libertarianism to go forward. Pacifism, radar, fits someone of your aggressive, autocratic disposition like pants on a cow. You're not being true to your nature.
If you think you have Constitutional proof for your contention, you will quote the relevant passage. If you have not the proof, you will bluster loudly to cover up your fault.
Foreign policy is the common defense of Americans, as sensible people understand -- and you will deny, not from intellectual clarity but from pigheadedness. Your contorted reading of the Constitution convinces you, perhaps -- you alone; and really, it shouldn't. Your notions of how the nation should interact with other nations work only in the complete absence of other nations. The Constitution, after all, says nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted... well, I'm not going to go down so silly a road. I'm righter than you are, but you haven't the character to admit it, being crippled and sickened and blocked, aye constipated, by your narcissism. It prevents you from learning, whereas I learn all the time, particularly on foreign policy. You misuse your ego, valuing it too much. You cannot cope with a knowledgeable challenger. Me, I am not so struck by my own intellectual significance, and can thus exercise better character, more honesty, and clearer, more real thinking.
The Constitution has never forbid ordering the troops into action: the precedent of 150 shooting wars, and five declarations of war, say Radar is stone wrong and always will be stone wrong so long as he insists on his way. Phooey! The Executive Branch has the responsibility to conduct the nation's foreign policy, and from time to time that means dealing with nasty trouble. Barbary pirates. Injuns. Allies getting invaded by other powers.
Nor do our foes deserve the win here: look at their nature -- Non-Integrating Gap types, undemocracies, poverty-makers through trying to cut off globalization (for reasons never anything but specious), dictators and would-be dictators, illiberal abusers of women... the list could get longer, but these should do. All that crap should be wiped away, and those resisting that change should be denied the further power of resistance, and permanently -- of course. This is liberationism, down at the nitty gritty. Radar chokes on it -- he doesn't want the liberation, nor logically enough the libertarianism (or a nearer approach to it) that naturally follows on, and which even more naturally allows a people to prosper. Radar doesn't get it, and clearly doesn't want to get it. I certainly don't want anything to do with his approach in consequence, for it doesn't work and it does nothing at all.
One problem and on this one point I concede to Urbane. Since Washington had the Navy attack the Barbary pirates off what's now Libya, just about every US president unilaterally engaged its troops in international conflicts, some that are virtually undeclared wars. Radar, you will have to condemn the whole lot of US presidents who had to contend with a usually indecisive Congress.
What is McCain going to attack Russia with? His false teeth? The only other way is nuke, but you don't think that Mr. 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' would do it, would he?
Mentioning the Barbary Pirates does nothing to bolster your position. The Constitution allows the use of the military to protect American ships from pirates. It does not allow the federal government to use the military to carry out regime change, or nation building, or humanitarian aid, or starting unprovoked, non-defensive, unwarranted wars.
I do condemn every president who has made war without a declaration of war. Presidents have zero authority to make war; only Congress may do that, and then only when it is in America's defense, and then only when a formal declaration of war has been made.
Radar, is it not crashingly obvious that libertarianism will not occur in the places that need it most until the human obstacles to it that will present themselves are removed? I do not expect all the human obstacles to survive the removal process, nor am I worried at the prospect. Conversions from bad ways to good ways are all the stronger if the stubbornest adherents to the bad ways have gotten killed. Provides motivation for the more pragmatic-minded, don't you know. Once they discover it works, then the conversion really sticks.
The writers you evoke clearly haven't the solution. It's time for new ideas. If, that is, one actually wants libertarianism to go forward. Pacifism, radar, fits someone of your aggressive, autocratic disposition like pants on a cow. You're not being true to your nature.
If you think you have Constitutional proof for your contention, you will quote the relevant passage. If you have not the proof, you will bluster loudly to cover up your fault.
Foreign policy is the common defense of Americans, as sensible people understand -- and you will deny, not from intellectual clarity but from pigheadedness. Your contorted reading of the Constitution convinces you, perhaps -- you alone; and really, it shouldn't. Your notions of how the nation should interact with other nations work only in the complete absence of other nations. The Constitution, after all, says nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted... well, I'm not going to go down so silly a road. I'm righter than you are, but you haven't the character to admit it, being crippled and sickened and blocked, aye constipated, by your narcissism. It prevents you from learning, whereas I learn all the time, particularly on foreign policy. You misuse your ego, valuing it too much. You cannot cope with a knowledgeable challenger. Me, I am not so struck by my own intellectual significance, and can thus exercise better character, more honesty, and clearer, more real thinking.
The Constitution has never forbid ordering the troops into action: the precedent of 150 shooting wars, and five declarations of war, say Radar is stone wrong and always will be stone wrong so long as he insists on his way. Phooey! The Executive Branch has the responsibility to conduct the nation's foreign policy, and from time to time that means dealing with nasty trouble. Barbary pirates. Injuns. Allies getting invaded by other powers.
Nor do our foes deserve the win here: look at their nature -- Non-Integrating Gap types, undemocracies, poverty-makers through trying to cut off globalization (for reasons never anything but specious), dictators and would-be dictators, illiberal abusers of women... the list could get longer, but these should do. All that crap should be wiped away, and those resisting that change should be denied the further power of resistance, and permanently -- of course. This is liberationism, down at the nitty gritty. Radar chokes on it -- he doesn't want the liberation, nor logically enough the libertarianism (or a nearer approach to it) that naturally follows on, and which even more naturally allows a people to prosper. Radar doesn't get it, and clearly doesn't want to get it. I certainly don't want anything to do with his approach in consequence, for it doesn't work and it does nothing at all.
UG graces us with another laughably stupid and non-libertarian rant.
My reading of the Constitution is exactly as it was written by our founders and my positions are the same as theirs. Stop using "foreign policy" as a euphemism for "starting unprovoked and unconstitutional wars". War is not foreign policy. War is what happens when foreign policy fails. I've already given irrefutable proof that this war is unconstitutional, you're just too dim witted and thickheaded to admit that this is what they Constitution says.
Libertarian is spread by example, not by force. The initiation of force (especially for political gain) is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
The Constitution PROHIBITS the federal government from taking part in or legislating anything that isn't within the Constitution. It grants ONLY congress the power to make war. It says the president BECOMES the commander in chief WHEN CALLED UPON by a declaration of war. It defines and limits the role of our military as being solely for the common DEFENSE of America.
I've got more character, intelligence, and backbone than UG will ever have. He refers to himself as a "knowledgeable challenger". He is neither knowledgeable, nor a challenger. He's a stupid, gutless, filthy, little weasel who keeps trying to rewrite history and re-define the English language to his own liking.
He mentions that the Constitution hasn't forbid these illegal actions as though that proves them to be legitimate. That's like a murderer saying, "Of course murder is legal. I got away with it."
He accuses me of being a pacifist when I am not. I am a military non-interventionist. But I am not a pacifist. I am all for using our military to defend America. That is its intended purpose and the only valid use of it.
I've cited the Constitution and given dozens and dozens of quotes from our founders and prominent libertarians proving that UGs positions are not Constitutional, not libertarian, and certainly not correct. Here's another quote you might like...
"The people can always be brought to the bidding of their leaders. All you have to do is tell them that they are in danger of being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger."
-Hermann Goering
Isn't this a thread about the Russian/Georgian conflict now underway in the Caucuses? Perhaps we could not derail another thread with arguments that have been put forth on numerous other threads.
I for one am not happy with the the western press and our governments portrayal of Russia in this mess. Georgia is not the good guy when it comes to South Ossetia. In fact if you called a South Ossetian a "Georgian" in a bar you might have to defend yourself.
Victims of the Georgian aggression.
Russia urges Georgia to pledge not to use force.
Russia mourns victims of Georgian aggression.
War in South Ossetia may trigger new outburst of US-Russian rivalry.
War in South Ossetia reflects profound deficits in US policy.
Western media blatantly misinterpret conflict in South Ossetia.
Stratfor acknowledges Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia.
Russia becomes officially involved in war against Georgia.
Bruce, you freakin' commie traitor! you've been reading Pravda???:eek:
Nah, just lookin' at the pictures. :headshake
playboy is for pictures bruce.
Oh noes, I wouldn't cheat on SG. :headshake
My reading of the Constitution is exactly as it was written by our founders and my positions are the same as theirs. Stop using "foreign policy" as a euphemism for "starting unprovoked and unconstitutional wars". War is not foreign policy. War is what happens when foreign policy fails. I've already given irrefutable proof that this war is unconstitutional, you're just too dim witted and thickheaded to admit that this is what they Constitution says.
Correction: what you
want the Constitution to say. Good luck with getting those Amendments passed. It appears I have a wider view of foreign policy than you do -- for is it not so that diplomacy is the pleasanter end of foreign policy, and that war is the nasty end? I'll go with Bismarck's remark that war is politics by other means. He could just as well have said foreign policy.
No, no irrefutable proof is visible, not to anyone. You have neglected that important point. I might point out that no one here seems to remember your doing it and I certainly don't see any links.
Libertarian is spread by example, not by force. The initiation of force (especially for political gain) is the exact opposite of libertarianism.
I'm dithering here between "good luck with that," or simply remarking "IOW, it is not being spread at all." They're just both such good responses. You've still got to outthink and outpunch the tyrants who are guaranteed to raise some objection or other, and we all know what tyrants' objections look like. If you try it radar's way in these environments, all the libertarians die.
It grants ONLY congress the power to make war. It says the president BECOMES the commander in chief WHEN CALLED UPON by a declaration of war.
Funny, isn't it, that you aren't showing that with the relevant Constitutional text, isn't it? Got any proof, or not? We shall see, won't we? Every single historical precedent is against you, you know. The Supreme Court would not be alone in telling you to take your case, fold it, spindle it, and insert it. The Executive and Legislative Branches would no doubt join the chorus, along with those of us who can't exactly find a downside to removing fascist Ba'athists and replacing them with practicing democrats. What's wrong with your approach is it amounts to "Leave Tyrants Alone." Nonlibertarian in the extreme, I should think.
It defines and limits the role of our military as being solely for the common DEFENSE of America.
As a practical matter, defense of America has never been distinguishable from defense of American interests, wherever they may be. In the era of globalization, these are even more inextricably intertwined.
He's a stupid, gutless, filthy, little weasel who keeps trying to rewrite history and re-define the English language to his own liking.
And this rantlet shows superior intellect and character how?
The guy who confuses Republicans with Nazis, or tries to get others so confused, hasn't persuaded me as to the excellence of his understanding. Radar, I very much doubt you understand that last sentence, for I know your mind. You're starting to sound like a sockpuppet for tw, of all people to have the hand of pushed all the way up yours.
What is demonstrated by the behavior of all parties concerned here (Georgia, Russia, United States, South Ossetia, Ukraine, etc) with respect to the question:
What does it mean to be an ally of the United States?
Would Russia have invaded if Georgia had been admitted to NATO, as they desired?
Paul Krugman, who admittedly is usually wrong anytime economics are being discussed, says it means nationalism is becoming ascendent once more. What he doesn't say is that W's aggressive foreign policy helped get us back to this point.
Would Russia have invaded if Georgia had been admitted to NATO, as they desired?
No one wanted Georgia to be admitted to NATO precisely because we are not blind. We knew exactly what would have happened. Georgia would have gone after their break away provinces of South Ossetia, and Abkazia, and expected all their new allies to back them up. We are not that dumb diplomatically. It's been going on since Stalin gave these provinces to Georgia in the early 1900's, intensified in 1991 and carries on today.
The west is big on making Russia out to be the big bad guy in this. They are by no means innocent, neither is Georgia, neither are the South Ossetians. The very nature and way that people think who are born and raised in this part of the world, the way they think about ethnicity is foreign to us in the melting pot of America. Again we are judging the actions of a foreign nation by our own measures and we will come up short, and fail to fully engage out of ignorance.
In my opinion Georgia fucked this one up. We would do the same thing if in Russia's shoes.
The truth is between Pravda and CNN somewhere.
What is the minimum critical mass for a viable state (excluding Grifftopia, of course)?
Is Georgia large enough to stand alone? South Ossetia? Abkazia? I heard that there are as few as 100,000 native Abkaz's (sp?) remaining. How can that be enough to form a stable state? Especially in the location under consideration here? And under the circumstances you describe, having been "given to" Georgia. Perhaps Ohio is large enough to be a viable independent state. What would the US response be to a (hypothetical) "breakaway" by Ohio?
It's pretty ugly from all directions, I admit.
But our own interests must include a demonstrable effect to being called an "ally", don't you agree?
I do agree, we do have to demonstrate our ability to be an ally. We don't have to demonstrate our ability to turn a blind eye to regional history and politics, in favor of our own "spin" of how we'd like to see the world. I think this would serve our interests much more. This "spin" smacks of dishonesty and self delusion to me.
I think diplomatically Georgia fucked this up, it puts us, their friend, into a very tough position.
I suppose if it were up to me, I'd put the mailed fist that we have into a velvet glove more often then have been.
What if the "Ohians" had been living in Ohio since before our alphabet was invented by traveling monks?
To answer your last question, the "Ohioans" in question might be described as Chippewa or Delaware or Erie. This has happened. A futuristic example has even entered the language by the Borg "You will be assimilated."
What makes the wheels go round and round is a mutual respect for the rule of law. My read on this is that the SOs disliked the treatment they received at the hands of the Georgians, and hoped (probably in vain, but the grass is always greener, etc etc) to dislike the treatment by the Russians a little less.
If they want independence, they're dreaming. If they want to be Russians, they'll be accommodated [/borg].
Some, but not all, want to be Russians. In fact many do hold Russian citizenship.
No one wanted Georgia to be admitted to NATO precisely because we are not blind. We knew exactly what would have happened. Georgia would have gone after their break away provinces of South Ossetia, and Abkazia, and expected all their new allies to back them up. We are not that dumb diplomatically. It's been going on since Stalin gave these provinces to Georgia in the early 1900's, intensified in 1991 and carries on today.
The west is big on making Russia out to be the big bad guy in this. They are by no means innocent, neither is Georgia, neither are the South Ossetians. The very nature and way that people think who are born and raised in this part of the world, the way they think about ethnicity is foreign to us in the melting pot of America. Again we are judging the actions of a foreign nation by our own measures and we will come up short, and fail to fully engage out of ignorance.
In my opinion Georgia fucked this one up. We would do the same thing if in Russia's shoes.
The truth is between Pravda and CNN somewhere.
You may be correct on your assessment of Georgia's intentions with NATO membership, but I think that there really would be no obligation on the part of NATO to come to their aid if Georgia was the aggressor, and in this case they may have. All they did was open up a grand opportunity on the part of Russia to do what they have wanted to do for a long time, and that is reverse the bleeding of the break away republics from continuing to defect to the West and the EU. And in the case of Russia, they may also pay a large price for the incursion. Poland quickly agreed to allow a US anti-missile base in Poland. Others may follow suit as well, looking at it as a fast track to get closer to the West and EU and further from the domination and reversal to cold war era of the USSR. We are obviously entering a new cold war. All the more reason to quickly normalize relations with Cuba and cut off a similar move by the Russians in our own back yard.
August 14, 2008
South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war
By now, days after Georgian forces stormed the capital of south Ossetia and Russian units counter attacked across the breaking away province and beyond; a devastating war has spread across the Caucasus causing death, destruction and displacement of populations. All wars are terrible -- even the legitimate ones where country, freedom and survival at are at stake. But this war is particularly unnecessary, could have been avoided and above all is wrong; in fact I call it the perfect wrong war.
Unfortunately, when battles are raging with tanks, artillery, bombs and all sort of firepower, it becomes more difficult to see the substantive issues clearly than before the confrontation began. For example, it becomes more pressing to reach a cease fire, provide medical attention, create Red Cross corridors, stop ethnic cleansing, human rights breaches and take care of refugees, than to investigate who began the hostilities, what provoked it, what are the local claims and what international equation has permitted such an onslaught. And to make it more complicated, rushed journalistic reporting -- often biased -- confuses public opinion endlessly. In short, once the bullets fly, media sensationalism explodes and political agendas creep in.
Let's review the battle of arguments in the South Ossetia conflict and try to analyze the essence while keeping an eye on the bigger picture, the one that affects democracies' national security and international efforts against terror forces.
(continues)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/08/south_ossetia_the_perfect_wron.htmlAll of this is funny, because Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw the soul of a good man...
Re: Merc's link,
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...fect_wron.html
That's the first explanation I've seen that makes sense. I don't know if it's accurate, but it sounds logical. :confused:
To answer your last question, the "Ohioans" in question might be described as Chippewa or Delaware or Erie. This has happened. A futuristic example has even entered the language by the Borg "You will be assimilated."
I think some members Lakota tribe in the Midwest did try to declare independence. I don't really know the result of this.
My thoughts on the Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia conflict have been summed up pretty well here. Big conflict of interests that probably can never be solved without big sacrifices by South Ossetia. But that doesn't mean that this is their fault, just that they are the minority in this situation which puts them at a natural disadvantage.
Missile shield accord draws Russian fire
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow and Jan Cienski in Warsaw
Published: August 15 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 15 2008 18:09
Moscow lashed out at Washington and Warsaw on Friday, saying the plan to site a US anti-missile defence shield in Poland would undermine the global balance of power and put Poland at risk of nuclear attack.
Washington and Warsaw reached a preliminary agreement on Thursday to build part of the missile defence shield in Poland, station US Patriot missiles there and bolster the two countries’ military co-operation.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec3816b6-6a60-11dd-83e8-0000779fd18c.htmlAll of this is funny, because Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw the soul of a good man...
That's the first explanation I've seen that makes sense. I don't know if it's accurate, but it sounds logical. :confused:
I don't remember that phrase being attributed to Bush. I do remember reports that Bush said he looked him in the eye and got a sense of his soul. Perhaps he did, perhaps he saw a kindred soul, one with a similar affinity for the expansion of executive authority. Goodness knows they each have dramatically pushed the boundaries of their respective offices.
I think Bush recognized his own soul when he looked into Putin's eyes.
My comment was in response to Merc's linked article, not Troubleshooters post. :headshake
What I think is most interesting is the timing of the invasion. Who stands to gain by either encouraging or deciding to this invasion? When the eyes of the world are on China, I wonder.
I guess mostly China is probably happy people are talking about some other arseholes instead of Tibet for a while.
No, no, no. We think Georgia used Olympic to plan for a surprise attack. The war stole our show and spoiled a traditional olympic truce.:D
As for Tibet, everybody could have their personal view. But, not much of them really know anything about it, except a little well-manipulated news and their imagination.
I don't think people should blame russia for this confict.
It's Mr. Saakashvili who started this war stupidly and recklessly. Maybe he thought sending 2,000 soldiers in iraq would be enough to scare russians to death, or to get US into a pointless war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ;)
I don't think people should blame russia for this confict.
It's Mr. Saakashvili who started this war stupidly and recklessly. Maybe he thought sending 2,000 soldiers in iraq would be enough to scare russians to death, or to get US into a pointless war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
There is enough blame to go around. Most of the world hardly trusts Russia's positon on anything.
I don't think people should blame russia for this confict.
It's Mr. Saakashvili who started this war stupidly and recklessly. Maybe he thought sending 2,000 soldiers in iraq would be enough to scare russians to death, or to get US into a pointless war.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ
Как Вас дела. Как Вас зовут? Откуда Вы?
Как Вас дела. Как Вас зовут? Откуда Вы?
I'm just an ordinary Chinese. I visit the Cellar to improve my english in a more light-hearted way.:)
online translation page gave me a hand to understand your post. :greenface why did you use russian. You think I'm a russian?
-----------------------------
Joinning anti-missile defence shield may be a dangerous gamble for Poland. I don't see any nessecity in 10-20 years.
It's more and more like a new cold war. :(
There is enough blame to go around. Most of the world hardly trusts Russia's positon on anything.
Most of the world hardly trusts the U.S. position on anything, either. :haha:
The Russia-Georgia conflict ends
Thomas Friedman's theory that no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war. (
original thinker)
Most of the world hardly trusts the U.S. position on anything, either. :haha:
No doubt. That is the point. If you don't trust the US why the hell would you choose to trust the Russian view? The reality is that you have to use NUMEROUS news sources to shape your opinion about anything these days. And the old adage of military intelligence still stands, "The first report is always suspect."
But aren't you assuming aliasyzy didn't do that, didn't look at the reports from east & west, then form an opinion?
As far as I can tell, Georgia has been trying to suppress the dissident Russians that want to be part of their traditional/historical mother country, by fucking with them pretty hard.
Meanwhile, Russia has tried to protect these people, under the guise of "peacekeepers", for the last 20 years. So when Georgia attacked South Ossetia, the Russians said, shock & awe, as bears are wont to do.
OK, your earlier link got into the possible thinking behind these actions, but just looking at what actually happened, I'd have to agree with aliasyzy, that Georgia screwed up.
We may never know what went on behind closed doors in the run up to this crap, maybe Saakashvili was set up, like Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, but doesn't make it the Russians fault.
We'll probably find out it was New Zealand's fault. :haha:
The Russia-Georgia conflict ends Thomas Friedman's theory that no two nations with a McDonald's have ever gone to war. (original thinker)
:lol2:
We may never know what went on behind closed doors in the run up to this crap, maybe Saakashvili was set up, like Saddam when he invaded Kuwait, but doesn't make it the Russians fault.
We'll probably find out it was New Zealand's fault. :haha:
There were a lot of neocons in the region just this July. Both Condi and Rove had talks with Mr. Saakashvili during this visit.
And even McCains foreign policy adviser was there...he
is a lobbyist for Georgia.
There were a lot of neocons in the region just this July. Both Condi and Rove had talks with Mr. Saakashvili during this visit. And even McCains foreign policy adviser was there...he is a lobbyist for Georgia.
Well there you have it!
"It's Bush's Fault!"
:rolleyes:
The backfire continues...
Ukraine offers satellite defence co-operation with Europe and US
Ukraine inflamed mounting East-West tensions yesterday by offering up a Soviet-built satellite facility as part of the European missile defence system.
Ukraine said it was ready to give both Europe and America access to its missile warning systems after Russia earlier annulled a 1992 cooperation agreement involving two satellite tracking stations. Previously, the stations were part of Russia's early-warning system for missiles coming from Europe.
"The fact that Ukraine is no longer a party to the 1992 agreement allows it to launch active cooperation with European countries to integrate its information," a statement from the Ukrainian Foreign Ministry said.
It follows a declaration earlier this week from Ukraine's pro-Western president, Viktor Yushchenko, that the Russian naval lease of the Ukrainian Black Sea port of Sebastopol would be scrapped if any vessels joined the conflict in Georgia.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/2570285/Ukraine-offers-satellite-defence-co-operation-with-Europe-and-US.htmlI have read a lot of different sources on this and here is a basic outline. Everything I have listed is what I believe to be true but I am not 100% certain because of potential media inaccuracies, biases, and lack of ability to get the needed information.
Some underlying facts:
[list]
[*]South Ossetia has tried to break away from Georgia since the early 90's
[*]Russian and South Ossetia's ties are very strong
[*]Georgia wants to join NATO
[*]Russia does not want Georgia to join NATO
[*]NATO and Russia are involved in power struggle
[*]No real economic importance in South Ossetia
[*]There is a pipeline that goes through Georgia
[*]NATO wants pro-NATO countries in control of the pipeline
[*]Russia would benefit from taking control of the pipeline
[*]The US needs Russia support for other issues
[/list]
The real four possibilities I see for the start of this are:
[list]
[*]Russia
[*]South Ossetia separatists
[*]Georgia
[*]NATO (US)
[/list]
Keeping all four possibilities open, this longtime ethnic conflict seemed to explode when Georgian troops started attacking SO separatists and Russian "peacekeepers". Then in response, Russia invaded SO, pushing the Georgian army out, and then kept going into Georgia. I am pretty sure that Russians have stopped their advance but I am not sure.
In Poland, the US made an agreement with Poland to place an anti-missile defense during the conflict.
Parts I do not know that would be helpful:
[list]
[*]length of time it took Russia to react
[*]NATOs knowledge of Georgia's invasion
[*]Whether Georgia withdrew troops from Iraq before invasion
[*]Whether US knew/helped with Georgia's troop withdrawals from Iraq
[/list]
Looking though all this I cannot find any clear cut evidence of what actually happened. I do not believe this is US or NATO backed invasion. NATO and the US have nothing to gain from SO and need Russia with some other issues. They have control of the pipeline and knowing the risk that Russia would retaliate and threaten this pipeline would force NATO countries to react, something they do not want to do seeing how they did not support Georgia when Russia invaded. There are potential conspiracy theories that NATO encouraged Georgia to test out Russian reactions for other future events but I don't see anything to really back up this claim.
I see a perfect possibility that this is just Georgia wanting to control SO and bit more than they could chew. They either did not know that Russia would retaliate or expected NATO backup. The only "success" the Georgian's had were to look weak and as the victim in the western media.
Another possibility is that this the work of SO separatists without Russian involvement that exploded out of control. They may have known that even though the Russians didn't instigate the attacks, they would have the SO's back if Georgia attacked. The timing with the Olympics is fishy, Georgia, Russia, or NATO would use that more strategically then SO, but could be a coincidence or very good planning by the SO separatists.
The last possibility would be Russian caused. I have real doubts that Russia was only SO's knight in shining armor because they went farther into Georgia then needed but that could just be Russia making a show out of Georgia to prevent any other attacks on pro-Russian ground. I am 50/50 on whether Russia could have instigated the conflict because Russia's retaliation seemed to be more symbolic then actually political. Russia does not have much to gain from this besides protecting its "territory". There is the pipeline but Russia knows full well that taking control of the pipeline would start a massive shit storm.
I don't know if this small conflict will start to anything bigger, a second cold war, or is just another small power struggle and ethnic conflict but the Polish agreement is very interesting. This very strongly hints that these missile defense systems are geared towards Russia and not Iran and that Poland sees Russia as a threat.
Hopefully this will not escalate out of control and people will remember the real victims are the numerous SO and Georgian citizens that have died in the fighting.
Edit- Merc's last article goes very well with Poland's.
length of time it took Russia to react - days.
NATOs knowledge of Georgia's invasion - no country masses troops on a border, esp a country like Russia, without the US or Nato watching from the sky. I believe they knew the moment troops started to move toward the border.
Whether Georgia withdrew troops from Iraq before invasion - No. The US fly the 2000 or so troops back from Iraq.
Whether US knew/helped with Georgia's troop withdrawals from Iraq - See above.
NATO wants pro-NATO countries in control of the pipeline - Not to sure about this. Georgia wants to control it. Not so much Nato as the EU. Russia has cut off the main source of power to EU countries and pre-ComBlock nations, or threatened to do so, in an effort to get them to do what they wanted them to do. Any country who controls the natural resources of power controls everything. Russia has learned the lesson of OPEC style power and control.
Nice work laying it out PH45/Regjoe/Merc and all. Many layers on this one. A lot of us are old enough to think of Russia as the default bad guy. That is dangerous.
Nice work laying it out PH45/Regjoe/Merc and all. Many layers on this one. A lot of us are old enough to think of Russia as the default bad guy. That is dangerous.
Yea, me too. But I have had this nagging feeling since Putin came into the picture, as an ex-KBG Chief, that something more nefarious was brewing. Much of the evidence over the last years have confirmed that notion. I think we are entering a new Cold War phase whether we want one or not. I think if Putin would have stepped down at the end of his term my thoughts would be different, instead they were reinforced.
It could be a new front in the energy war.
I really believe that as well. As countries become more populated and their needs grow over the next 50 years those countries who own the sources of power will control everything. The US, the EU, and many others will be second class consumers, a role we are becoming accustomed to more each year.
Well there you have it!
"It's Bush's Fault!"
:rolleyes:
Bush is an idiot and ...anyway, not the source. By neocons, I mean the group that surrounds him and basically pull his strings. It does seem that a lot of the people involved in our foreign policy were in the area in July. The White House is currently trying to downplay the meetings, but its hard to ignore the coincidence.
Bush is an idiot and ...anyway, not the source. By neocons, I mean the group that surrounds him and basically pull his strings. It does seem that a lot of the people involved in our foreign policy were in the area in July. The White House is currently trying to downplay the meetings, but its hard to ignore the coincidence.
It is also easy to believe conspiracy theories when they fit your preconceived notions about what you want to believe.
Hmmm.....it seems that in order for Georgia to join NATO, it can not have border and territory disputes. So, subduing SO and the other separatist territories are a must for them.
It is also easy to believe conspiracy theories when they fit your preconceived notions about what you want to believe.
What conspiracy theory are you thinking I believe in? Maybe its the same as yours. Because I believe, like you, that this could be part of the 'new' energy wars to come. But, I also believe that our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were too.
yeah, cuz buildings falling down had nothing to do with afghanistan.
The world is sufficiently complicated to contain both those ideas.
But, I also believe that our incursions into Afghanistan and Iraq were too.
That I do not believe and challenge you to prove your assertions.
The world is sufficiently complicated to contain both those ideas.
Hell if we just wanted oil we would have invaded any numerous other countries with half the armies and a shorter distance at half the cost. Canada, Mexico, Venezuela, Nigeria, yea, there is a long list. We only get about 15% of our oil from the Middle East.
yeah, cuz buildings falling down had nothing to do with Afghanistan.
Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Huh.
That I do not believe and challenge you to prove your assertions.
My assertions are based on the research I did at the time. I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines. The Taliban were getting greedy and wanted a bigger cut of the action. I also discovered that Saddam was planning some sweet oil package deals with China and Russia to be set in motion once he was free of the sanctions. AND he was talking about dealing with euros instead of dollars. I cant say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.
See, there was this organization called Taliban and a guy named Osama B... oh nevermind, just straighten your tin foil hat, it'll be easier.
See, there was this organization called Taliban and a guy named Osama B... oh nevermind, just straighten your tin foil hat, it'll be easier.
I see you really really like the Kool Aid.
:eyebrow:
The taste is cool, but I love when the big guy crashes through the wall. You know something else I like? Reality. Try it some time.
Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11? Huh.
My assertions are based on the research I did at the time. I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines. The Taliban were getting greedy and wanted a bigger cut of the action. I also discovered that Saddam was planning some sweet oil package deals with China and Russia to be set in motion once he was free of the sanctions. AND he was talking about dealing with euros instead of dollars. I cant say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.
You have been drinking something if you believe that crap. Let me adjust your tin foil hat for ya... Tell me you were born in 1990 or something like that so I can have some compassion for you....
My assertions are based on the research I did at the time. I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines.
I posted the debunking of that one
right here in February 2003. The source article is still available.
I cant say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.
You used something you assumed to be true, to determine other things were false. Don't do that.
I'm pretty sure I understand how and why we got started in Afghanistan, but can't figure out why they did such a piss poor job of it, then moved to Iraq before finishing the job. :rolleyes:
I won't argue with that point Bruce, just the idiocy of the people that still feel 9/11 was part of a big oil conspiracy.
We only get about 15% of our oil from the Middle East.
The other way to say this is that,
"Holy shit 15% of the worlds oil supply is endangered when the Middle East is destabilized!" We are not there to take the oil. We are there to ensure supplies for the world economy. That has nothing to do with tin hats. See y'all after vacation.
I posted the debunking of that one right here in February 2003. The source article is still available.
You used something you assumed to be true, to determine other things were false. Don't do that.
But I will use that information to question what I am being told. Although I understood the desire for decisive action after the attacks on 9/11, I was still wary of our decision to attack another country so quickly, especially since it was claimed that the attacks were perpetrated by an individual group. So I started to look around for more information and I found many interesting bits that led me to see interesting 'connections'. I admit I am no scholar, and especially when it comes to geopolitical issues, but it is hard for me to discount information that jives with my belief that most of the military action undertaken by the US has economic/resource implications. I will also admit that I did use this information as fodder in the blame game against Bush. However, since, I have come to realize the issue is much more complicated than that.
Speaking of complicated, I just found this
article.
But I will use that information to question what I am being told.
Now that you know it's false? That's ridiculous. Don't do that.
Current events is really hard - there is so much so know, so much to figure out. But your way is the way of the 911 truthers: aim at something you think to be true, collect every piece of information that confirms your conclusion and throw away ever piece of information that doesn't. Everybody is doing that to some degree, but I swear to you it leads nowhere.
To assume everything you're being "told" is false is madness too. You can't even tell what you're being "told", versus simple facts, typical spin, everyone's aim at "truth", etc. What you must do, if you don't have enough information, is just admit to yourself you don't know and wait for more details.
Speaking of complicated, I just found this article.
This is a natgas pipeline for India and has absolutely nothing to do with the larger issue. Pipelines are a more economical method of transporting things and will appear routinely.
So you dont believe that our invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with protecting US interests in central Asia?
The invasion of Afghanistan happened for multiple reasons. To say it was for a single reason really oversimplifies the situation and US foreign policy in general.
The world is much more complicated then any of us can imagine.
Agreed ph but there is one big reason on that one.
Before 9/11 there were many countries around the world, such as the Saudis, that supported terror, both overtly and covertly. The primary support was financial.
Previous to 9/11 our response to terror events was to either run away (Starting with Reagan, Lebanon 1983) or basically do very little, because it was difficult, and pissed too many people off were we actually to try to address it.
This informed those countries that they were free to fund as they liked, and there would be no negative result for them.
After 9/11, then, it became important to demonstrate to those countries that the US was not a paper tiger and would actually do nothing less than invade to address support of terror. Now, many years after the event, we know that the overt support has pretty much stopped; and while we don't know about the covert, we have not been attacked again, which might suggest it was successful.
So you dont believe that our invasion of Afghanistan had anything to do with protecting US interests in central Asia?
George Jr administration did everything possible to get 11 September blamed on Saddam. But facts were irrefutable no matter how hard Cheney, Rove, etc spun it. Bin Laden was the mastermind behind 11 September. Virtually no responsible American civil servant was going to say otherwise.
US ultimatum was bluntly clear to Mullah Omar and his Taliban supporters. They refused to surrender al Qaeda leaders. So the US put massive support behind the Taliban's enemies. Cheney, et al had no choice - all the while planning for a Pearl Harbor attack on Iraq.
US invasion? Hardly. US forces were not even permitted to go after bin Laden in Tora Bora. The 'invasion' of Afghanistan was support for one war party over another. Some of those American allies were even 'bought off' by the Taliban - which is how bin Laden so easily walked out of Tora Bora.
Worse, the US never bothered to complete what is always required to win any war - ie Phase Four planning. If the US had plans on Afghanistan, then Phase Four plans would have - must have - been implemented. No such plans existed or were quashed by a naive administration that had no plans for Afghanistan. Who were also completely devoid of basic military concepts and strategy. Therefore even the Kabul - Kandahar highway was back in Taliban hands within a few years.
Where are all those corporate plans that justified an Afghan invasion? Back where they always existed - in conspiracy fiction stories. The administration's political agenda always was to take back *our* oil - as defined by principles that united those extremists: "Project for a New American Century". Afghanistan and bin Laden were problems that the George Jr administration repeatedly denied, intentionally delegated to subordinates of subordinates, and routinely ignored. Remember the expression, "Every light is flashing red?" Even multiple FBI investigations that threatened to uncover the 11 September plot were hindered or subverted by an administration that was in complete denial about bin Laden and his Afghan hosts.
US had no intentions on Afghanistan. In fact, Afghanistan was considered a greater threat to Iran. Just another reason to let Afghanistan be. Just another reason the administration wanted to blame 11 September on bin Laden's enemy - Saddam.
I didn't read your novel - yet. but welcome bag there big guy. How was your hiatus?
So now Russia is freezing its military cooperation with NATO and its allied countries. Geez, whats next. Love stong arming, I swear.:mad2:
What will happen with the current state of US-Russia cooperation in space?
We don't have enough shuttles to man the ISS until the Constellation program comes online. We *need* the Russian cooperation with Soyuz. Will that crash and burn too?
No worries. We'll just run our shuttles on an unsafe schedule until they go kablooey!
Thanks, I feel tons better now.
What will happen with the current state of US-Russia cooperation in space?
The ISS is designed so that the Russian section can disconnect and continue operating on its own. Other sections are designed to be dependent on the Russian section.
I discovered that there were several oil companies that needed a much calmer Afghanistan so that they could build a couple of planned pipelines. The Taliban were getting greedy and wanted a bigger cut of the action. I also discovered that Saddam was planning some sweet oil package deals with China and Russia to be set in motion once he was free of the sanctions. AND he was talking about dealing with euros instead of dollars. I can't say any of that is proof, but it sure did keep me from believing the propaganda we were given.
I think it needs pointing out that to do
anything economic in Afghanistan needs a much calmer Afghanistan, just as it would be anywhere. Poverty surrounds and follows warfare, particularly on the battlegrounds. Prosperity follows peace. The more ambitious the economic project, the more calmness is necessary.
The Taliban getting greedy -- well, the Taliban proved to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever anyway, so it's hardly extraordinary that they stirred in an extra measure of rapaciousness to add to their lame, and official, attempts at blackmailing larger economies. To have done the opposite would have been the extraordinary thing.
I'm on record as being less than impressed about any allegations of propaganda this and propaganda that. I see the entire campaign as one integrated whole -- unstable unfriendlies are
not who we want in charge of oil country, preferring that local friendlies who will be most stable (to say nothing of most prosperous) under democracy be the ones running the show. Democracy and economic connectivity are the things in shortest supply in oil country nowadays. Absent the petroleum industries, the entire gross annual output of all of Araby would be about that of... Holland.
Seriously, friendlies on the oil is all the neocons ever really wanted, and the Administration's strategy shows this clearly to anyone not struck purblind by anti-Republican prejudices (which I do not share because evidence is so lacking, and which usually signify to me a mind easily led around by anticapitalist, antiglobalist morons and sharpsters). I am resistant to anti-Republican spin -- our troubles in foreign policy come from non-democracies, and the fewer of those are around, the fewer our troubles shall be. The Democrats have managed no reduction of non-democracies at all; it's all been a Republican effort, which tells me the Republicans have the wisdom of it. I think they should be appreciated for that.
The beginning of the end for Saddam Hussein was to try conquest to cover international debts, rung up because dictators typically run their financial talent, among other kinds, out of their territory. Unless the dictator himself is a major financial talent -- seldom true -- the result is increasing debt followed by material ruin. Viz., Iraq. So Saddam launched two wars, Iran-Iraq and Gulf War I, to control more of the world's oil reserves, clearly in pursuit of oil revenues. He lost both, and with the second one his life also.
Bush unloads a can of whoop ass on Russia
Cheney visit to Georgia keeps pressure on Russia
By BEN FELLER – 1 hour ago
CRAWFORD, Texas (AP) — President Bush is dispatching Vice President Dick Cheney to Georgia, the latest burst of political support for an ally reeling from war with Russia.
The White House announced Cheney's trip Monday as the administration blasted Russia anew for failing to fully honor a cease-fire deal with Georgia, a former Soviet republic. The administration also chided Russian lawmakers for endorsing independence of Georgia's two breakaway regions, saying its Cold War foe has no authority to make that decision on its own.
Cheney is heading abroad on Sept. 2 for stops in three former Soviet Republics — Azerbaijan, Georgia and Ukraine — plus Italy.
"The vice president will be delivering the word of America's support," White House spokesman Tony Fratto.
Indeed, Cheney's presence in the war zone is a clear sign to Russia of the U.S. resolve behind Georgia after the small country was pummeled by a Russian military response. The vice president is the top-ranking U.S. official to visit Georgia since war erupted on Aug. 7.
Is Georgia a sovereign state? Methinks so.
We invade sovereign states all the time! How can Condi go in there and say invading a sovereign state is unacceptable when we do it all the time!
I know and understand the world and it's politics are are NOT my strong suit, (I like reading books about poetry) but, I'm asking: how is what Russia is doing any different than what we are doing?
How come NOBODY cares about Darfur??????
You could make an argument that Russia has done less then what we have on some wars. Georgia invaded South Ossetia so they could reach the requirements necessary for admission in NATO and Russia retaliated because the people in South Ossetian, many Russian themselves, feel a much stronger alliance to Russia then Georgia. Russia obviously is in fault too. They justified their attack by saying Georgians were committing genocide on the South Ossetians, which apparently isn't true.
Its just one of the many double standards used by the US and any organization in power.
... but, I'm asking: how is what Russia is doing any different than what we are doing?
Russia is doing exactly what they warned of four and six years ago. In fact, I believe the Putin speech that bluntly warned about this was in Munich about 54 weeks ago. Russia has continuously said that American anti-world (we must take *OUR* oil) policies would restart the cold war. Things that Russia considered essential to their security (ie SALT, anti-ballistic missile treaty, nuclear non-proliferation treaty) have been unilaterally terminated or subverted by the US.
Of course, you have heard other rumors and suggestions. For example, Russia may base nuclear bombers in Cuba. It would be a necessary Russian response if George Jr continues with his 'Russia is an enemy' containment policies.
Why did George Jr want to annex Georgia into NATO? Why was he talking same about Ukraine? Bottom line conclusion is unavoidable. Another puzzle part to surround and isolate Russia. You may not have noticed. But the Russians see that quite clearly. Ukraine, the K'stans, Baltic States, anti-missile bases on their border, etc. These are not actions of an America that trusts Russia. These are historic chess moves that preceded invasion. Appreciate why Putin has repeatedly warned about American actions since George Jr and his military empire building extremists have come to power.
Before 11 September, what was the George Jr administration attitude? They still believed that Russia was an enemy. They were rearranging the White House organizational chart to return to a cold war strategy. Why were Richard Clark and the Alex Station moved out or disbanded? Those did not coincide with their extremist attitude of containing the evil Bear. We are getting the cold war we want. Notice how many completely misunderstood Russian objectives in Georgia. Russian security has been threatened by George Jr administration attitudes and actions. Unilaterally discarding international treaties has consequences four and ten years later. How many, using lessons of history, understood those consequences when those treaties were discarded by George Jr? Georgia is an example of what results.
Feh. Ever the apologist for the totalitarians, NEVER the partisan of democracy. Tw, you repeat your self disgrace, never know any better, and essentially exhibit no sympathy for any society blessed with enlightenment. (No tyranny is, you bodacious, maximal political idiot. Comes of your not comprehending humanity.)
I know and understand the world and it's politics are are NOT my strong suit, (I like reading books about poetry) but, I'm asking: how is what Russia is doing any different than what we are doing?
I think there is a huge difference. But of course you have to buy that we did not invade for oil or some other conspiracy theory.
How come NOBODY cares about Darfur??????
Who said no one cares? We learned a lesson in Somalia on that one. Darfur is Africa's problem.
But of course you have to buy that we did not invade for oil or some other conspiracy theory.
What is your working definition of "conspiracy theory"?
What is your working definition of "conspiracy theory"?
Make up stories.
http://www.therazor.org/?p=855In this thread it is playing out as "anything challenging my world view." Do you really believe that oil had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq? I can understand if you believe it is less important than other factors but nothing is just nuts.
In this thread it is playing out as "anything challenging my world view." Do you really believe that oil had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq? I can understand if you believe it is less important than other factors but nothing is just nuts.
I believe it may have been a very small tiny factor in that terror states like Iran have the ability to disrupt the flow of oil out of the region. But that is about it. Now if you would like to show me how much more low cost oil we have gotten from the region since the war, I would be glad to believe that it was a larger factor. Since oil is at an all time high along with gas prices I am betting that theory doesn't hold water or oil.
Now if you would like to show me how much more low cost oil we have gotten from the region since the war, I would be glad to believe that it was a larger factor.
Ah, this is where we are not communicating. The price for oil is set by the market. We're only trying to maintain a stable supply not set prices. At the beginning of this conflict, I knew folks who really thought cheap oil was going to pay for the war, but they were just war supporters looking for benefits. I don't remember any of the anti-war crowd claiming a beneficial drop in oil prices. I believe prices are high because demand is high and oil resources are limited. Protecting, which I claim is a subsidy, the diminishing supply of easy oil is more politically acceptable to GOP politicians than subsidies for alternative energy. This is probably because Republican politicians have been able to claim other, nobler, reasons for high concentations of American troops in unstable parts of the world.
Ah, this is where we are not communicating. The price for oil is set by the market. We're only trying to maintain a stable supply not set prices. At the beginning of this conflict, I knew folks who really thought cheap oil was going to pay for the war, but they were just war supporters looking for benefits. I don't remember any of the anti-war crowd claiming a beneficial drop in oil prices. I believe prices are high because demand is high and oil resources are limited. Protecting, which I claim is a subsidy, the diminishing supply of easy oil is more politically acceptable to GOP politicians than subsidies for alternative energy. This is probably because Republican politicians have been able to claim other, nobler, reasons for high concentations of American troops in unstable parts of the world.
I still don't buy that was a reason to go into Iraq.
Now this is funny as hell. What an idiot.
As Russia struggled to rally international support for its military action in Georgia, Vladimir Putin, the country's paramount leader, lashed out at the United States on Thursday, contending that the White House may have orchestrated the conflict to benefit one of the candidates in the American presidential election.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/29/europe/29putin.phpI still don't buy that was a reason to go into Iraq.
If radical Islam ran through the region unchecked, it would disrupt the oil supply. Think of oil as a potential weapon in the terror war. This gives Bush a reason to attempt to institute a more democratic regime so that when Saddam falls he isn't replaced by Muhammed al Fluffer Nutter who would turn off the spiggot and support similar insurgencies in places like Saudi Arabia that actually grow people who attack us.
George Jr.___________ neo con____________encyclopedic puke fest_____________ MBA's_____________anti american_____________big dic____________ intelligent poster already stated___________________.
you fill in the blanks.
I've been meaning to make a "Cellar Mad Libs" thread, but now... nevermind. [size=1]You insensitive bastard.[/size]
In several ways, tw does not qualify as an intelligent poster, nor is he likely to start qualifying anytime soon. So deficient is he in this field that not even he should take his views seriously.
He assuredly does not qualify as either a democrat or a classical liberal.
If radical Islam ran through the region unchecked, it would disrupt the oil supply. Think of oil as a potential weapon in the terror war. This gives Bush a reason to attempt to institute a more democratic regime so that when Saddam falls he isn't replaced by Muhammed al Fluffer Nutter who would turn off the spiggot and support similar insurgencies in places like Saudi Arabia that actually grow people who attack us.
Although I don't disagree with your assessment I disagree with the weight of it as a reason we went in.
If radical Islam ran through the region unchecked, it would disrupt the oil supply. Think of oil as a potential weapon in the terror war. This gives Bush a reason to attempt to institute a more democratic regime so that when Saddam falls he isn't replaced by Muhammed al Fluffer Nutter who would turn off the spiggot and support similar insurgencies in places like Saudi Arabia that actually grow people who attack us.
In other words, it's a war for oil, and China's oil as well.
Now this is funny as hell. What an idiot.
http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/29/europe/29putin.php
Um, merc, I think Putin is a lot better at detecting intrigue than you think, especially something as obvious as this. This is part of Bush/Cheyney's preparation for the revival of the Cold War, and McCain, who fought a hot part of the Cold War, can claim experience in fighting a Cold War. Call us 'idiots' too for connecting the dots.
"The revival of the Cold War"? DB, that's -- so hard to believe I wonder that you believe it. Explain yourself, and it better be thoroughly rational.
There would be a few possible reasons why the United States would want to revive a cold war. The US is a world superpower and it, the ones in charge, want to keep it that way.
Russia and the former USSR have been bitter enemies ever since the end of WWII and the US has shown that it will be willing to do anything to get the upper hand in this war including dropping atomic bombs on already beaten countries and supplying Islamic extremist with weapons to fight against their Soviet invaders.
All we have to do is look back 2200 years in the Mediterranean to see a similar situation with Rome and Carthage. After the first Punic War, which Rome won, Carthage came back wanting revenge and Hannibal came into Roman territory, devastating them, before finally losing the second Punic War. Then, in between the second and third Punic war, Roman War Hawks would end every speech with some comment relating to the total destruction of Carthage, which they finally accomplished in later years.
Old Red Scare politicians, while not to the extreme as the Romans, still think in similar ways so they could want to start a second Cold War to either prevent a Russian "Hannibal" or to totally destroy Russia.
Another option is to look at who profits from Cold Wars, that can always give a hint onto what is happening as well.
Russia and the former USSR have been bitter enemies ever since the end of WWII
Is this exactly what you meant to say?
Whoops. :redface:
The US and Russia/the former USSR have been.....
the US has shown that it will be willing to do anything to get the upper hand in this war including dropping atomic bombs on already beaten countries
Huh?? please explain that one.
The dropping of the atomic bomb on Japan was more of an attack against the USSR then Japan. It really makes sense when you think about it. Both countries knew a stand off was going to happen, Japan's oil supply was nearly zero (aka they were beaten and they knew it), Japan was trying to get a conditional surrender, the USSR, the same USSR that sliced through Germany, just declared war on Japan, and neither the US or Japan wanted a North and South Japan.
Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month. Just that if it was held off until later, Japan most likely would have split in similar fashion to Germany,without the British and French sectors of course, because during the few days the USSR was at war with Japan there was no stopping it.
In defense of the US, no one knew just how powerful and symbolic the atomic bomb was going to be but it does show how far a country will go to get the upper hand in a standoff such as the one between the US and USSR.
Sorry PH - the way I read it was that you were implying that we were willing to drop the bomb now. "in this war including dropping atomic bombs"
Sorry PH - the way I read it was that you were implying that we were willing to drop the bomb now. "in this war including dropping atomic bombs"
Whereas America would not drop an atomic bomb in Georgia, it was sure ready and may have planned a nuclear attack on Iran. Adm Fallon was quite blunt about saying he stopped an attack on Iran that coincided with a sudden concentration of aircraft carriers in the Gulf. That bunker busting nuclear bomb demanded by the George Jr administration back in 2003 was probably ready for deployment. To those who see war as the only solution - who would go to war without a strategic objective - Iran would have been a perfect testing ground for their new bomb.
A nuclear bomb would have made a statement of America's will - or how America views and must save the world.
I love how you are the only one knowing what America is/or is not planning to do - You really must be in the loop. Since no one else here has access to this valuable proprietary info please share the source with the rest of us.
Sorry PH - the way I read it was that you were implying that we were willing to drop the bomb now. "in this war including dropping atomic bombs"
Nah, I have no idea what the actual conversations are behind the closed doors.
Oh Classic, tw might be talking about this:
Revealed: Israel plans nuclear strike on IranThat isn't the U.S. that's Israel.
Tw is always ready to demonstrate how big a nut he really is. Coconuts aren't in it! The man is still deranged enough to love any foreign tyrant, anywhere, any time (Any pics at home of George, or Richard, the Third?) rather than for the democracies where his sympathies should lie... or would if he acted and thought like a human being. Tyrant-lovers should be abominations even to themselves, and hasten to suicide to clean up our lovely world.
Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month.
Care to cite a source for that bullshit? :eyebrow:
revisionist historians agree. of course, they also believe that Custer winked at Sitting Bull so deserved what he got.
Care to cite a source for that bullshit? :eyebrow:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939
revisionist historians agree. of course, they also believe that Custer winked at Sitting Bull so deserved what he got.
One of the most notable individuals with this opinion was then-General of the Army Dwight D. Eisenhower. He wrote in his memoir The White House Years:
"In 1945 Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
Other U.S. military officers who disagreed with the necessity of the bombings include General of the Army Douglas MacArthur, Fleet Admiral William D. Leahy (the Chief of Staff to the President), Brigadier General Carter Clarke (the military intelligence officer who prepared intercepted Japanese cables for U.S. officials),[68] and Fleet Admiral Chester W. Nimitz, Commander in Chief of the Pacific Fleet.[69
OK, so before those bombs were dropped Japan was ready to surrender and there was no expected need for allied forces to land troops in Japan?
Wikipedia, ba ha ha!!!1 [color=white]. . . [/color][/source-bashing] [color=white]. . . [/color][size=1]totally just kidding[/size]
Japan wasn't the sort of nation to fight to the bitter end?
I love how you are the only one knowing what America is/or is not planning to do
If classicman did not entertain a wacko extremists bias, then he read this even in the Cellar. A sudden concentration of at least four American aircraft carriers appeared at the same time that Cheney was preaching war-mongering rhetoric and fears about Iran's non-existent atomic bomb.
Oh. Fox News and Rush Limbaugh did not report it? Later, Adm Fallon, commander of Central Command at that time, says he stopped an American attack on Iran. Was he talking about an attack that involved many American aircraft carriers? Well, classicman did not even know about that gaggle of American carriers including Stennis, Truman, Nimitz, and other ships including Marine assault carriers Bataan and Boxer. classicman also did not read Adm Fallon's statement. All this was public knowledge available only to those who know by learning. And still classicman did not bother to learn facts. classicman would again attack others rather than admit he was again ignorant. classicman - did the extremist party propaganda network forget to inform you about an event 16 months ago? Or is it just easy to look smart by attacking the messenger?
People who also do not deny American torture and international kidnapping also knew this in March 2007. classicman ignored read news that contradicts his political agenda?
What are we doing in Iraq?
So how do you and UG greet one another? Zieg Heil or Welcome Comrade?
Look twit - oh nevermind. You aren't worth the effort to push the keys down to type the words.
Funny how the only link you put into the above post is one to yourself - full of conjecture, assumptions and allegations with ZERO proof to back it up - just fucking fuck the fuck off. Oh and tell me do you and radar do the secret pinky shake each time you meet?
Sorry - couldn't resist.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
Of which the title is. "[COLOR="Red"]Debate[/COLOR] over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
That tells me historians
do not agree
http://www.amazon.com/Racing-Enemy-Stalin-Truman-Surrender/dp/0674016939
He has mined Japanese and Russian literature and documentation and, despite much that is [COLOR="red"]based on surmise[/COLOR], provides fresh insight into the [COLOR="red"]extraordinary inability of Japanese leaders to surrender[/COLOR], and into Stalin's machinations aimed at maximizing Soviet territorial gains in East Asia.
So after 60 years and detailed research into Jap and Red archives, he's come up with this surmise.
Now, you think Truman should have had the same surmise, with access to neither? Get real.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debate_over_the_atomic_bombings_of_Hiroshima_and_Nagasaki#Militarily_unnecessary
That's the same link as the first one. Ike was in Europe, hardly in a position to know what was happening in Japan. Don't forget, while we are at war, the military brass are heros. But when the war ends they are yesterdays news, and sometimes unemployed.
The bottom line is, your statement;
Russia and the former USSR have been bitter enemies ever since the end of WWII and the US has shown that it will be willing to do anything to get the upper hand in this war including dropping atomic bombs on already beaten countries and supplying Islamic extremist with weapons to fight against their Soviet invaders.
is preposterous.
Look twit - Funny how the only link you put into the above post is one to yourself ...-
I'd like to add a correction to my above post - just to be completely accurate.
...which has
another link to
another one of your own posts which is also full of conjecture, assumptions and allegations with ZERO proof to back it up. Quoting yourself doesn't necessarily make any of your statements/opinions or posts any more accurate, nor does it count toward backing up your unfounded allegations.
The more things change the more they stay the same.
The bottom line is, your statement; is preposterous.
How is the statement preposterous?
Japan was an already beaten country* and whether the use of the atomic bomb is debatable or not; Japan was beat. My other statement, the US giving weapons and money to Islamic extremists to fight against Soviet invaders, is correct as well. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan shows that.
I'm not trying to pull off the "America is all evil and everything bad now is a result of its policies" statement, because that is bullshit, but we are in no way the good guys either. We are just watching out for our national interests (or corporate if you wish).
* - For Japan ready to surrender, if Truman changed his stance from "unconditional" to "conditional", the Japanese probably would have surrendered because from what I understand, their were seven people making the decisions on whether Japan surrendered or not: 3 military advisers, 3 other advisers, and the emperor. The three military advisers did not want to surrender, the three other advisers did, and the emperor didn't because he would then lose the ability to rule for himself and his lineage. So it was a very close decision at the moment and changing "unconditional" to "conditional" would have changed the emperors vote.
OK, so before those bombs were dropped Japan was ready to surrender and there was no expected need for allied forces to land troops in Japan?
They surrendered after the dropping of two atomic bombs. I really doubt a full scale invasion would be needed since we had them blockaded, they knew they were beat, and they had the best two armies in the world coming at them from both sides. Germany didn't stand a chance and neither did Japan. Everyone was just delaying the inevitable.
Japan wasn't the sort of nation to fight to the bitter end?
Of course, and that is why the Japanese have been erased off the face the Earth...
The Japanese were prideful, but a few insane military leaders don't necessarily mean the whole population thinks a certain way. Even though it is on a much smaller scale, the pride in defending "Islam" has many similarities and I can guarantee that Muslims won't fight to the very end. The majority will adopt western culture the first chance they get. I can't see how the Japanese were that much different since they are VERY westernized nation at the moment.
The Japanese were prideful, but a few insane military leaders don't necessarily mean the whole population thinks a certain way. Even though it is on a much smaller scale, the pride in defending "Islam" has many similarities and I can guarantee that Muslims won't fight to the very end. The majority will adopt western culture the first chance they get. I can't see how the Japanese were that much different since they are VERY westernized nation at the moment.
What? Is it your age that is giving you these inacurate, and ridiculous ideas? Is it your teachers at the university? Is it that you are an American? Reread history about Islam. The majority in many geographic areas of the world will most certainly not embrace western culture, at any cost.
Yes many people of Japan would have fought to the what we would see as the "bitter" end. Yes, even in light of what we might call the invevitable victory. They were not cowards, in any sense of the word. They did not have your intelectual surrender in mind, you know, when you can see the end is near so you quit. I don't think that was going to happen.
Look twit - oh nevermind. You aren't worth the effort
What effort? You are so wacko extremist as to post insults (ie twit) and never a fact. classicman has been exposed again not knowing about current events even posted in the Cellar in March 2007. It was only a secret to those who post profanity due to shortage of knowledge.
Posted were numerous facts about a potential American attack on Iran complete with four attack carriers, Marine amphibious units, and the rhetoric from Cheney. Adm Fallon said he stopped an American attack on Iran. Those are the facts no matter how often a wacko extremist posts profanity and insult.
classicman - do you even learn from sources other than wacko extremist talk show hosts? You don't even deny listening to them. You did not even know about the American military deployment to the shores of Iran? That would require sources other than extremist talk show hosts and less time posting UG style insults.
What? Is it your age that is giving you these inacurate, and ridiculous ideas? Is it your teachers at the university? Is it that you are an American? Reread history about Islam. The majority in many geographic areas of the world will most certainly not embrace western culture, at any cost.
I disagree. I am seeing a very conservative Islamic society turn Western, or at least pick up many Western influences, as we speak. I used to live in a Somalian neighborhood and I also had some Somalian friends, all of whom were Muslim. You would NEVER see any of them drink, smoke, or do any drug in public but once they had privacy I only saw them follow one Islamic "rule" and that was not to eat pork. They smoke, they drank, they watched porn, they did every vice Western children, especially African American (that is the culture they are picking up), did. They reason why they never did any of those vices in public was because of the tremendously strong social forces. If one of them got caught they would be ostracized. Once they did not have to follow their parent's and culture's rules they acted no different than non-Muslims do. Many women, the ones with that cover their heads, would be very sexually active as well. Some of my friends actually tried to hook me up with a Somalian woman.
Western culture, both "white" and "African American/others", is tremendously attractive to many non-westerners but their culture and social forces prevent many of them in fully participating in it. If Iraq does become stable and westernized, I would expect to see them start to embrace Western culture or their own version of it whether they like the United States and the West or not.
Yes many people of Japan would have fought to the what we would see as the "bitter" end. Yes, even in light of what we might call the invevitable victory. They were not cowards, in any sense of the word. They did not have your intelectual surrender in mind, you know, when you can see the end is near so you quit. I don't think that was going to happen.
Three of the seven main deciders in Japan were for surrendering and Japan did surrender in the end. And yes, many Japanese would have fought to the bitter end and many Muslims will blow themselves up to fight imperialism but that doesn't mean the majority will. If you would read up on the Pacific War you would see that Japan went the Soviet Union to try to negotiate peace. It wasn't the "fight to the bitter end" that kept the Japanese fighting but the conditions we gave them if they did.
"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."[13]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_japan#Attempts_to_deal_with_the_Soviet_UnionI see, you are basing your assumption on your experience with a Somali neighborhood, here in the states. Get a plane ticket and try that on for size on the Arabian Peninsula, or Pakistan. Yes, there are young muslim men, smoking and drinking, and looking at porn. Isn't that great? Wow, western influence at it's best. You think the older generation of Muslims are going to be o.k. with that? You think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight of some kind?
Unconditional surrender for a war that the Japanese started, with an unprovoked attack. I agree with the terms. If I were Japanese it would have taken a couple of atomic weapons to seal that deal as well.
What effort? It was only a secret to those who post profanity due to shortage of knowledge.
Posted were numerous facts about a potential American attack on Iran complete with four attack carriers, Marine amphibious units, and the rhetoric from Cheney. Adm Fallon said he stopped an American attack on Iran. Those are the facts no matter how often a wacko extremist posts profanity and insult.
classicman - do you even learn from sources other than wacko extremist talk show hosts? You don't even deny listening to them. You did not even know about the American military deployment to the shores of Iran? That would require sources other than extremist talk show hosts and less time posting UG style insults.
You can't read remember you only know how to write. Well this post certainly exemplifies that. The on "facts" were references of you by you. Hardly anything worth repeating. You didn't cite anything at all, except yourself. That counts for zero, nothing at all.
I need not deny anything, why is it you feel that I have to justify myself or anything else for that matter to you? You give me all this crap after I voted you the most loved cellarite too - WTF?
How is the statement preposterous?
Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month.
Don't you read your own links?
"Debate over the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki".
If historians agree, why is there a debate? :rolleyes:
I see, you are basing your assumption on your experience with a Somali neighborhood, here in the states.
Yes I am. I am not saying that every Islamic culture is at the same point as the Somalis, but that will most likely follow in a similar fashion.
Read this article:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6463059&&CM=EmailThis&CE=1
Get a plane ticket and try that on for size on the Arabian Peninsula, or Pakistan. Yes, there are young muslim men, smoking and drinking, and looking at porn. Isn't that great? Wow, western influence at it's best. You think the older generation of Muslims are going to be o.k. with that? You think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight of some kind?
No, I do not think they will give up their youth to our "western culture" without a fight and I don't blame them in any way for it. I just believe they will lost that fight, big time.
Unconditional surrender for a war that the Japanese started, with an unprovoked attack. I agree with the terms. If I were Japanese it would have taken a couple of atomic weapons to seal that deal as well.
I never stated my opinion in the matter and I made sure of it. The decision to drop the atomic bomb or not can be more or less justified based on the goals of the United States. If the US wanted to just end the war then they would not need to drop the bomb. If they wanted unconditional surrender or end the war before the USSR could get further influence in the region and possibly split the country like Germany then the bomb was most likely needed. That brings me back to my original point that we would drop an atomic weapon on an already beaten country to get an upperhand with the USSR. It may not be the only or main reason we dropped it, but that is most definitely a factor.
Don't you read your own links?
You're reading the wrong parts, Bruce!
No I'm not. He made the statement;
Historians agree that the war was going to end by the end of the month.
That is total bullshit. Historians do not agree, and his very own links prove it.
The Wiki link is titled, "The DEBATE....", and goes on to present both sides. Just because he has chosen one side to believe, doesn't make it so, nor does it make his statement, "Historians agree...", any less bullshit.
He then goes on to make further assertions based on that bullshit, which makes them also bullshit.
sounds like a lotta bullshit going on somewhere
The historians agree part, ok, but what other parts are complete bullshit?
Remembered this ph45 discussion when recently Jon Stewart labeled Truman a war criminal. At the righty pjtv,
Bill Whittle replies to Stewart with a very interesting 15 minute history lesson on what it took for Japan to surrender.
Our comprehension of real wartime is confused by the nature of modern war. We have not experienced a fight for the existence of the country in four generations. (Did you know the Manhattan Project required one sixth of all the electricity generated in the entire US?!) So the video is long, and gets too moralistic in the last minute, but it's worth the watch, if you have the time.
And, required viewing for ph45.
Historians agree pfffff. You're making the same mistake with the Somalis too. You never ever ever ever take one piece of evidence and attempt to describe an entire set of historical circumstances with it. Any halfway decent historian would laugh at you for doing so. Take a philosophy and writing of history course before you open your mouth about history again because it's obvious you don't have any concept of what good historical discourse involves.
And, required viewing for ph45.
This video brings very little to the discussion.
First, he made some very big assumptions, the largest being that the Japanese would continue to have the will and resources to fight. Second is that the views of military leaders represent the views of the country. Third, while not an assumption, is never mentioning the fact that the Soviet Union would have an extraordinary effect on the Pacific Theater.
First, what evidence does the speaker bring to conclude that the Japanese would have kept on fighting? That death tolls were rising the closer the US forces got to Japan and a few specially selected quotes from hardcore military leaders?
First I will give a quote of my own by the Emperor after the battle of Okinawa,
"I was told that the iron from bomb fragments dropped by the enemy was being used to make shovels. This confirmed my opinion that we were no longer in a position to continue the war."
Second, here is a view of their economic standing at the time.
"The destruction of the Japanese merchant fleet, combined with the strategic bombing of Japanese industry, had wrecked Japan's war economy. Production of coal, iron, steel, rubber and other vital supplies were only a fraction of their pre-war levels."
Third, it is also documented that Stalin deceived the Japanese into believing that the Soviets would help a peace agreement so they could gain land. It is also documented that the Japanese looked to the Soviets for peace. Another quote from Japanese ambassador to Moscow.
"His Majesty the Emperor, mindful of the fact that the present war daily brings greater evil and sacrifice upon the peoples of all the belligerent powers, desires from his heart that it may be quickly terminated. But so long as England and the United States insist upon unconditional surrender, the Japanese Empire has no alternative but to fight on with all its strength for the honor and existence of the Motherland."
Fourth, it is finally documented that the Japanese even tried to reach a direct peace agreement with the United States.
11 July 1945 - Japan offered to surrender unconditionally, with one exception - they wished to retain their monarchy. They didn't insist on retaining Emperor Hirohito. They were willing to replace him with his small son, for example. The US wouldn't even talk to them - the bomb was dropped on them without the US ever responding to any of their peace feelers. Since we let them keep their monarchy (they never unconditionally surrendered - the US offered assurrances to the Emperor on August 11 after both bombs were dropped, when they had the assurrences they surrendered), there was no difference between this offer and what happened on August 14.
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Soc/soc.culture.japan/2005-08/msg00120.html
(I'm not sure how reliable this source is but I have read this in books getting this information from first hand sources)
So basically, the idea that Japan would never have surrendered is complete bullshit. Japan was looking to surrender under the conditions that they could keep the monarchy while Truman and the allies would only accept unconditional surrender. This past argument was a while ago so I don't entirely remember what I believed at the time but I think it was the point that many lives could have been saved if conditional surrender was sought instead of unconditional. There was a large divide among the Japanese at the time, though saying that, it could have gone either way. But from the sources, it seems like at least some of the Japanese leadership were looking for surrender while it is also obvious that some were not as well.
To add some further information regarding the video. The atomic bomb was not the sole factor for the surrender either. As mentioned earlier, Japanese had very little resources. Two, the Soviets invaded around the same time as the atomic bomb droppings and that would have tremendous effects on the Japanese. Third, after the Japanese surrender, some of the military leaders that were obsessed with making sure that the emperor did not surrender attempted a military coup on August 12 to the 15.
That video is complete shit and only responded to elementary critiques of the atomic bomb dropping. To make it clear, I really don't have a strong opinion on this topic because I do realize the effects of the firebombing and it is extremely difficult to not go into that subject while talking about the atomic bomb but I do believe that Truman's pride and obsession with unconditional surrender led to the death of hundreds of thousands of innocent people. I also do not believe this is uncommon among leaders.
Doing a little back reading. Wikipedia would never be allowed as a vetted source of information, at least not by my teachers. Neither would the internet. We have to crack books.
Uh huh. Well, as most teachers admit, Wikipedia is a great source to start researching for topics since many pages have very well documented sources. For example, if I did this topic for school I would read and document the sources that were cited in Wikipedia to get a start on my project. Also, I would actually do research because I have different standards on a graded assignment then an internet forum. This topic, link below, is very well cited and seems legitimate. If you disagree, show me how.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrender_of_Japan#cite_note-3Sure well cited and seems legit. Wiki is a good place to start. Vetted sources are harder to find. I'm only saying that to put myself across as a well studied man only citing wiki and internet sources is not working for the crowd I hang out with, nor is it working for me.
First, he made some very big assumptions, the largest being that the Japanese would continue to have the will and resources to fight.
Will? The army that would rather commit suicide than surrender? You don't have a clue about the Jap culture of the era.
Second is that the views of military leaders represent the views of the country.
You reaffirmed my first statement, the military was the country. There were no views other than the military.
Third, while not an assumption, is never mentioning the fact that the Soviet Union would have an extraordinary effect on the Pacific Theater.
C'mon, with what? We were running a two front war because we had a chance to build an unbeatable war machine while the Russians were getting beat the fuck up. They had all they could handle just getting to Berlin, plus a lot of new territory they desperately wanted to hang on to. Their ability to stage a major attack on Japan was severely limited.
Will? The army that would rather commit suicide than surrender? You don't have a clue about the Jap culture of the era.
Japanese culture has very little to do with this. The Japanese leadership knew they could not beat the United States from the beginning and after Okinawa, many saw the war as a lost cause. The general population would have kept on fighting, but the leadership, while making some really stupid decisions, for the most part did not believe they could hold off the United States and Soviet Union without any oil.
It is shown that the Japanese went to Soviet Union many times looking for peace and were extremely divided themselves on the issue. The point is that the Japanese would seem to accept conditional surrender but not unconditional.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_War_Council_(Japan)
At the ending of the war, three wanted to surrender and three wanted to keep on fighting. Guess which ones were on which side.
You reaffirmed my first statement, the military was the country. There were no views other than the military.
To the general public, yes, the military had complete control but not in the government. Japanese leadership was extremely divided on the issue and many in the military did not want surrender even after the emperor changed his stance, hence the attempted coup.
C'mon, with what? We were running a two front war because we had a chance to build an unbeatable war machine while the Russians were getting beat the fuck up. They had all they could handle just getting to Berlin, plus a lot of new territory they desperately wanted to hang on to. Their ability to stage a major attack on Japan was severely limited.
Besides the million men they could have contributed to the front....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manchurian_Strategic_Offensive_Operation#SovietsJapanese culture has very little to do with this.
The fuck it doesn't, it's got everything to do with it. It was a culture of followers, order takers, don't rock the boat, don't make waves. The Japs did what they were told without question.
The Japanese leadership knew they could not beat the United States from the beginning and after Okinawa, many saw the war as a lost cause. The general population would have kept on fighting, but the leadership, while making some really stupid decisions, for the most part did not believe they could hold off the United States and Soviet Union without any oil.
Leadership? The military was leading the country, you think they started a war they knew they could not win? For what purpose?
It is shown that the Japanese went to Soviet Union many times looking for peace and were extremely divided themselves on the issue. The point is that the Japanese would seem to accept conditional surrender but not unconditional.
It is shown the Japs were in Washington looking for peace when Pearl Harbor was bombed. The duplicity of the japs in morning coats is well know. They pulled the same shit destroying the Russian fleet in 1908.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_War_Council_(Japan)
Nice link.
At the ending of the war, three wanted to surrender and three wanted to keep on fighting. Guess which ones were on which side.
Two atomic bombs and half wanted to keep fighting. I guess we forgot to say "Simon Says, give up".
To the general public, yes, the military had complete control but not in the government. Japanese leadership was extremely divided on the issue and many in the military did not want surrender even after the emperor changed his stance, hence the attempted coup.
When the teacher wants to do math, it doesn't fucking matter that the first graders want recess.
Besides the million men they could have contributed to the front....
Wrong, they couldn't hold on to Manchuria if they moved those soldiers out, but it's a moot point because they didn't have the food or supplies to support them. The Russian soldiers have to live off the land like Sherman in GA.
It's a long swim to Japan, the only way the Russians could have gotten there is if we moved them and that wasn't going to happen. They might have been able to get something going in '47, maybe even late '46, but not '45.
End of the war.The fuck it doesn't, it's got everything to do with it. It was a culture of followers, order takers, don't rock the boat, don't make waves. The Japs did what they were told without question.
That is true but I have never once focused on the Japanese population. I have only focused on the people giving the orders when I say "will to continue". I have given you many quotes of
leaders who thought continuing the war was pointless. That supports my statement.
Unless you think that the leaders couldn't think from themselves. Which in case I must ask who was giving orders then? God?
Leadership? The military was leading the country, you think they started a war they knew they could not win? For what purpose?
Pearl Harbor was a gamble that ended badly for the Japanese. They knew they could never take the United States head on so they gambled pearl harbor for time and resources they did not get.
It is not hard to see why the United States overtook the Japanese. Our resources, manpower, and economy was tenhold theirs.
It is shown the Japs were in Washington looking for peace when Pearl Harbor was bombed. The duplicity of the japs in morning coats is well know. They pulled the same shit destroying the Russian fleet in 1908.
Good point but in both those situations (Pearl Harbor and Russian fleet), they Japanese made an offensive move. There was no possible way they could make an offensive move on the United States after Okinawa, not possible.
Saying I want peace has a much different effect when you are planning on blindsiding someone versus you are on your back get your face smashed into the ground. The second has a 95% chance of being more sincere.
Nice link.
Nice response....
Just because information came from wikipedia doesn't mean it is false. Plus, I have most of my information from books that I cannot link too so I am doing the best I can without putting in unneeded time providing more reliable sources.
Two atomic bombs and half wanted to keep fighting. I guess we forgot to say "Simon Says, give up".
Japanese leaders (generalization) made their own decisions, the population were the sheep.
When the teacher wants to do math, it doesn't fucking matter that the first graders want recess.
Explain this. I don't know how that makes any sense to my quote.
Wrong, they couldn't hold on to Manchuria if they moved those soldiers out, but it's a moot point because they didn't have the food or supplies to support them. The Russian soldiers have to live off the land like Sherman in GA.
It's a long swim to Japan, the only way the Russians could have gotten there is if we moved them and that wasn't going to happen. They might have been able to get something going in '47, maybe even late '46, but not '45.
The Soviets were already there. The mobilized right after they took over Berlin. They were in the Kuril Islands in 1945.