Once again America proves its social and moral immaturity

Started by The Overlord, December 19, 2008, 07:53:16 AM

Previous topic - Next topic

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Dashenka

The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is stone cold but I do not believe that is Putin's fault. Nor is it the Ukrainians fault. The only one to blame is the Soviet Union.

Secondly I do not really think that Putin was aggresive towards western expansion but he, and I too, believe that Western Europe is trying to expand to the east. They try to control all the countries and tell them what and what not to do. Again the best example is Kosovo and Serbia. Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

Finally, I think no country in the world wants to actually launch nukes and in all honesty, I very much doubt if ours are even working. The Red Army and all it's components are a mere fringe of what it used to be. So I agree on that no country is willing to go nuclear.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Oniya

Quote from: Dashenka on January 30, 2009, 10:18:55 AM
Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

I agree with the idea that splits work best when they are mutual, whether between individuals or political units, but what if you have something like the situation in Georgia, where one group wants to secede, and the 'home country' doesn't want them to secede?
"Language was invented for one reason, boys - to woo women.~*~*~Don't think it's all been done before
And in that endeavor, laziness will not do." ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think we're never gonna win this war
Robin Williams-Dead Poets Society ~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~Don't think your world's gonna fall apart
I do have a cause, though.  It's obscenity.  I'm for it.  - Tom Lehrer~*~All you need is your beautiful heart
O/O's Updated 5/11/21 - A/A's - Current Status! - Writing a novel - all draws for Fool of Fire up!
Requests updated March 17

Dashenka

Well I guess Im the wrong person to ask but maybe I should explain the situation there how it happened. I saw the news reports in the Netherlands and they were a little... 'off'

Abgacia and South Ossetia are provinces of Georgia but are rebellious towards it for quite some time now. Nothing really happened there and it was relatively peaceful. Since Georgia didn't send any military there and those provinces wanted to join Russia, Russia send some soldiers there to keep order and that's what they did. They never shot any Georgian person.

So what happens... this freako president of Georgia suddenly decides to take back the provinces by force and by doing so his army killed Russian soldiers.
The reason Russia attacked was not that it wanted to steal the land, as the Dutch reports suggest, but simply as a retaliation of the death of Russian soldiers.



Having that cleared out I believe that Russia should never have send soldiers there without negotiating with Georgia. Georgia has a problem and let them solve it. Either by force or by diplomacy. They could have 'handed it over' to Russia without any bloodshed. In my opinion the pride of the Georgian president and his attitude towards Russia was the reason he decided to send tanks and soldiers to those provinces. But in this situations there are so many factors playing that giving a simple solution isn't easy but simply declaring a part autonomous is too simple.


Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Zakharra

Quote from: Dashenka on January 30, 2009, 10:18:55 AM
The relationship between Russia and Ukraine is stone cold but I do not believe that is Putin's fault. Nor is it the Ukrainians fault. The only one to blame is the Soviet Union.

Secondly I do not really think that Putin was aggresive towards western expansion but he, and I too, believe that Western Europe is trying to expand to the east. They try to control all the countries and tell them what and what not to do. Again the best example is Kosovo and Serbia. Russia always said Kosovo is Serbia and if anybody should ever split up those countries it should be the Serbs themselves, not the EU, US or Russia.

Finally, I think no country in the world wants to actually launch nukes and in all honesty, I very much doubt if ours are even working. The Red Army and all it's components are a mere fringe of what it used to be. So I agree on that no country is willing to go nuclear.


The Eastern European countries might have wanted to join NATO because they remember 50 years or so of Russian rule/domination. Putin is seen in the West by many people as trying to put the USSR back together. His actions are seen as aggressive in expanding Russian influence in the former Soviet and East Bloc nations.


RubySlippers

And the United States hasn't? We did invade Iraq for no justifiable national defense reason and under Bush has alienated many nations and I'm not convinced Obama will be any better.

Zakharra

Quote from: RubySlippers on January 30, 2009, 01:16:19 PM
And the United States hasn't? We did invade Iraq for no justifiable national defense reason and under Bush has alienated many nations and I'm not convinced Obama will be any better.

It was justified and accepted, voted on even, by the Congress and the President. At the time, there was thought to be sufficient proof to do it.

Dashenka

Justified!?

So if the US has a slight hunch, a tinkling in the back of the neck, that a certain country MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction, it's justified to invade the country, bomb it to rubble and then leave them to their own?

If that is what justice is in your country I'm GLAD to be living in Russia.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Zakharra

Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 08:13:30 AM
Justified!?

So if the US has a slight hunch, a tinkling in the back of the neck, that a certain country MIGHT have weapons of mass destruction, it's justified to invade the country, bomb it to rubble and then leave them to their own?

If that is what justice is in your country I'm GLAD to be living in Russia.

AT THE TIME! EVERY nation, including Russia, believed Iraq had WMDs. We now have 20/20 hindsight to know we were wrong.  You are now looking at it from the current prospective, not from what was known back then and no, the US is not leaving them on their own. In that you are wrong. We're still there. 

Russis is not my idea of a free nation with governmental control over much of the public/commercial sector and media. Not a free place. At least in the US you can vote in people to change things, speak out against the ruling party and not end up shot, arrested and missing.

Dashenka

Right I didn't mean to insult anybody. Keep your shirt on. Russia and a good part of Western Europe went to Iraq because of the lobbying of mr Bush. He showed those countries fake evidence and were fooled into a war.

As for your other.. well thing...

I am a journalist working in Moscow for a national newspaper. I write my articles the way I see it and when that means to criticize the government I will and I have done so. And last time I checked, I was still alive and not missing.
Don't try to understand Russia when you don't know our history.

It's the same reason why I don't understand most of the Americans. We are different and that is what makes us. No need to insult anybody.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Zakharra

 The US did not lead on the other nations intelligence agencies. They came up with their own conclusions. Which matched, more or less the US position Iraq did have WMDs. that is an arguement that has been done ad-nauseium before here though.

  There's been reports of the government controlling, shutting down or surpressing free speech in Russia, in the news media here. Of private businbesses being taken over, nationalized, by the government. All pointing to  a ressumsption of the old USSR. Many are also suspicious about Putin, ex-KGB high officla and his assumption of power. He's not left the national scene, but seems determined to rebuild the USSR in a newer form.

The nations of the old Eastern Bloc that want to join NATO, and have missle defences put in them. Why's Putin so against that? Because the missle defenses (anti-missle missles) could, theoretically reduce any missle threrat that Russia might be planning? Those nations have a right to determine their own security and if that includes putting missle defenses to ward off possible threats from regimes like Iran, or a resurgent Russia.. *shrug* Any complaints make people wonder what Russia really has planned for Europe if they argue against that.

Dashenka

The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Why place that missile shield at the border of Russia and not inside Russia? To me that shows that Bush still saw Russia as one of his 'bandit states'.

There have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proven who did it

As I said, our history makes us a little weary for certain things and that is why some nations think of Russia as criminal and corrupt and all. Moscow went from nothing to the city with the most billionaires and millionaires in the world. Such a sudden change of environment does things to you. So please do not judge us for things that you can not comprehend, it is who we are and what we are.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Zakharra

 
QuoteThe fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Uumm.. We already have rockets and missles that can do that from the US mainland itself, ones in western Europe, ships and ballistic missle submarines. We've had that ability since the 60's. The anti missle missles are not payload delivery systems, but are anti missle defense against missles that are coming their way. They are relatively short ranged. So that's not a necessarily accepted reason to fear it being done since it's a moot point as far as ranged missles go.

Zakharra

 
QuoteThere have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proven who did it/quote]

Acceptable. Getting reliable and unbiased news is always difficult.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/jul/08/russia.media

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/worldopinionroundup/2006/07/putins_russia_case_study_in_me.html

http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=17476&Valider=OK

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/1754828.stm

http://www.sras.org/russian_media_and_democracy_under_putin

http://www.theotherrussia.org/2007/11/14/media-control-101/


These are some articles I found about how the world sees Russia's attempts to stifle the media, and how the media of the world sees these events.

Dashenka

Is any of them Russian?
I am not going to waste more time explaining that whatever Russia does is for the best interest of our country. We do not want more power because we already have a lot of power over Europe in the form of gas.

Accepting all those third world nations in eastern europe and the CIS would be dramatic for our economy.


And since you obviously can't seem to stop pointing out how the world sees Russia...
I'm very sorry but do you have ANY idea how the world sees the USA?

Hamburgers, big polluting cars and hypocrisy.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Cecily

Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 03:51:24 PM
Is any of them Russian?
I am not going to waste more time explaining that whatever Russia does is for the best interest of our country. We do not want more power because we already have a lot of power over Europe in the form of gas.


While I don't know if Russia is stifling the media, it wouldn't make much sense if Russia actually was stifling the media and yet there were news reports in Russia expressing this. That's sort of the whole point of stifling the media - to stop them from reporting on things that the government doesn't want people to hear.

I'm not leaning either way, I'm just trying to make a point that hypothetically if Russia was trying to shut their media up, there wouldn't be reports on it from the Russian media. I hope I worded that properly.

Thufir Hawat

#90
Quote from: Zakharra on January 31, 2009, 02:14:49 PM

Uumm.. We already have rockets and missles that can do that from the US mainland itself, ones in western Europe, ships and ballistic missle submarines. We've had that ability since the 60's. The anti missle missles are not payload delivery systems, but are anti missle defense against missles that are coming their way. They are relatively short ranged. So that's not a necessarily accepted reason to fear it being done since it's a moot point as far as ranged missles go.
I hate to get into this kind of debbates, but I had to ask - you know about the MAD and NUTs theories, do you?
Long story ultra-short, it's not about the ability to destroy the other side, since both sides have that ability. It's about the motivation not to use nuclear weapons. No, idealistic motivations don't count for that. Think in realpolitik categories.

As I said, I hate getting into this kind of discussions.
Join The System Gamers List
Request thread 1 Request thread 2
Request thread 3
ONs and OFFs
"Love is a negative form of hatred." - Roger Zelazny, This Immortal

A&A thread!

Silk

Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 12:23:08 PM
The fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Not only the fact that missiles will be in range but lets look at this from another perspective, what if America decided to attack Russia, with that shield in place one of its counterattack methods would be crippled and give America a free ride without any long distance assaults from Russia to send them astray, you have to remember even a shield can be used as a weapon.



Long story short, in the game of politics you should allways look for the other possibility's behind their choices, one of the greatest weapons of the new age is information.

Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 12:23:08 PM
Why place that missile shield at the border of Russia and not inside Russia? To me that shows that Bush still saw Russia as one of his 'bandit states'.

As above, in a case of a attack on Americas side, Russia would not be able to strike at the shield because it is in a country that is not partaking in the war and will count as a act of aggression into European countries, and of course with Americas propaganda (Yes it is propaganda because they only give you the information they want you to know, deal with it)
they wont say about Americas attack but will say about Russia's counteroffensive.
Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 12:23:08 PM
There have been reports in Russia that CNN is only showing the news the want to show and the news the rest of the world is showing. The point I'm trying to make it that you think Russia is trying to take over Europe, which is fine since you are allowed to have an opinion. I however do not agree with that view. The reporter that was shot in her house is BELIEVED to be killed by people loyal to Putin. That leaves about 70 million possible suspects. It was never proved who did it
Saying a Putin loyalist is like saying a white man who murdered a black man is a racist, things are rarely that black and white (no pun intended)

Quote from: Dashenka on January 31, 2009, 12:23:08 PM
As I said, our history makes us a little weary for certain things and that is why some nations think of Russia as criminal and corrupt and all. Moscow went from nothing to the city with the most billionaires and millionaires in the world. Such a sudden change of environment does things to you. So please do not judge us for things that you can not comprehend, it is who we are and what we are.
The reason why people see Russia as corrupt and such is that the countries don't go "Hey Russia did this awesome thing, cool huh!" its allways "OMG Russia did this now lets all QQ at their evilness!" I never believe anything unless i hear both sides, and as the media is today, "One Englishman was killed, lets not say anything about the 200 others its just this one Englishmen we will worry about, by the way it was a African American Englishman (Yes that is what there called sometimes) and the killer was a white man so it is believed to be a racist attack even though the other 200 were white people, there was one black person so it is racist."

And of course people believes Iraq a third world country had the capability to use WMDs that could reach Europe and America, if all these anti missile weapons are available why such a ruckus about a country that resorts to road side bombs and guerrilla strikes, yeah that really sounds like a country capable of long range military strikes, and of course the moment Iraq was seen as "safe" now it was Iran that had these weapons, sorry to break it to you but Iraq was just for its supplies of oil, since America likes to have cars that do 1 mile per swimming pool of diesel

Zakharra

 I have a good idea how the world sees the US.

The articles I posted are by media groups that have a real concern over freedom of speech in other nations.

Zakharra

#93
Quote from: Thufir Hawat on January 31, 2009, 05:08:57 PM
I hate to get into this kind of debbates, but I had to ask - you know about the MAD and NUTs theories, do you?
Long story ultra-short, it's not about the ability to destroy the other side, since both sides have that ability. It's about the motivation not to use nuclear weapons. No, idealistic motivations don't count for that. Think in realpolitik categories.

As I said, I hate getting into this kind of discussions.

This is what I was responding to,
QuoteThe fact that Putin and Medvedev and every Russian is against that rocket shield is because Bush and the US would have rockets in range of Moscow. Frankly that scared the crap out of everybody here. Bush is more instable than our gasflow to Europe and it only took a firecracker to set him off. Should he have rockets in range of Moscow, God knows what would happen.

Her post was sounding as if the US had no rockets/missles capable of reaching Moscow already. I can understand Russia's complaints if they are worried about their missles being unable to, or having a reduced chance of reaching the US, or points in Europe. Other than that I can't see any validity in their arguements. If they are not planning an attack, it should be moot. Let them develope their own defenses, which they are trying I'm sure. One of the reasons for the missle shield is from other nations like Iran, which -does- have the capacity to hit Europe. Only Russia, the US and China have multiple launch ability so having several in some natiosn can be all the deterrent they might need to protect against missles.

RubySlippers

I shocking support a missle defense system in Europe and other areas, but that we should have done this project with Russia. They offered a base and would be happy to have this it seems a fair compromise. And they don't want terrorist missles flying at them any more than we want them hitting Western Europe.

Zakharra

 I can see where it might have run into problems with who would have access to the technology. Letting Russia have access to sensative US military tech would be sticky for any military.   The idea of making a continent wide missle defense shield is sound, implimenting it.. harder.

Dashenka

What would we need with American military technology? Nothing. For a few good reasons. First is that we simply don't have the money to spend on any military. Why do you think we're selling off our entire tank and navy fleet?
Second, back in the time, the USSR was equal if not better in tech than the rest of the world.


All I'm asking is when that missile shield is being put into place... why put it at the border of Russia and not include Russia in it? Sure it will protect Europe but I highly doubt the US is willing to put a shield to protect Europe. So it's to protect the US as well. In the east of Russia (west of the US) Alaska is nearly bordering Russia so if we should want to fire off missiles, that's our gateway.

Secondly all those bandit states border Russia or are very close. We do not have the ability to intercept any rockets so if for example Iran fires off a missile and sends it over Russian soil there is nothing we can do to stop it and it has free lanes to Hawaii or Alaska.

The whole idea of a missile shield in my opinion is ridiculous but the idea of not including Russia is even more stupid. We are as much part of the Western world as any European country.
Out here in the fields, I fight for my meals and I get my back into my living.

I don't need to fight to prove I'm right and I don't need to be forgiven.

Trieste

This looks as if it has rather strayed off-topic. Can y'all please make a new thread?

Zakharra

 Acceptable, Trieste. I'd be willing to discuss this with Dashenka in a thread.

RubySlippers

Who said all of our technology we were looking at a limited defense against a small limited missle attack, and since such a installation would be owned by us and the Russians with them handling likely the detection system is that a problem?

At some point nations must trust each other and with two of the Permanent Security members firing off the missles to defend other nations would be a major thing for rogue nations with nuclear missles that might use them. We can set one up with China as well.