• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war

scourge99

DP Veteran
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
6,233
Reaction score
1,462
Location
The Wild West
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Moderate
http://m.cnn.com/cnn/ne/world/detail/160079/full

And so the shoving match begins. Who's going to blink, run away, or throw a punch first?

Personally I would hope that we could get along. Can anyone explain WHY we can't get along? Is the US/NATO just a big bully or is Russia just impossible to befriend?
 

How US/NATO is anything remotely considered to be the bully here is absurd given the FACTS?

Putin's Russian military unilaterally and without provocation attacks the sovereign nation of Georgia and declares recognition of a State within that nation as independent state which NO OTHER nation in the world recognizes. This sounds roguish to me.

This is typical of the old Cold War Russia that denied it was invading a country, then put out conflicting reports of disinformation to confuse while it took over other countries.

I want ONE person, just ONE to explain to me in a coherent and FACTUAL way how Western polices are a threat to Russia?

The ONLY threat here is the THREAT Democracy brings to PUTINS desire to run Russia like a dictator. Putin's behavior typifies all despotic leaders as they attempt to control and take power; look at Chavez's actions; look at Castro's; look at Mugabe's.

They are all cut of the same cloth. Putin is attempting to suggest that the West is a threat to Russia because of a DEFENSIVE missile system; because of our support of Georgia's fledgling Democracy?

How weak and idiotic. Only a fool can believe such tripe coming from a man who seriously lacks in credibility and credence.
 
Although I don't all too agree with TD, I do concur that what Putin is saying is class A BOLSHEVIK. For one thing there is no facts and not even reasonable suspicion to actually think that the US did this. Second of all, why fall into such an easy trap? The fight was between south ossetia and Georgia, Russia had nothing to do with it untill they voluntarily sent troops down there.
 

But there 10 peacekeepers were killed by Georgian artillery and they have to avenge the lives of the 2000 Ossetians killed...

Oh wait, more like less than 200. Most of which were likely those responsible for initiating the conflict by shelling Georgia early that day FIRST.
 
Putin knows the drill, "It's Bush's fault."
 
scourge99 said:
CNN || Putin accuses U.S. of orchestrating Georgian war


And so the shoving match begins. Who's going to blink, run away, or throw a punch first?
Click to expand...


The U.S. isn't going to take any actions further than sanctions till the election is over and done with. Any country that is about to undergo a power change is unstable, let alone such a contreversial election. It would be very unwise for the U.S. to do anything militarily, and even BUSH is smart enough to see this. But that doesn't mean OTHER NATO nations cant take action. They are thinking of throwing Russia out of the G8... Woopdie doo, they were a communist nation for the most part of a century, that wouldn't be anything new. I think NATO should have taken military action.

The EU brokering a cease-fire deal is absurd, the EU is a mainly economic alliance, not a military alliance. For them to make a peace deal, whether its by the french or not is VERY irresponsible.

NATO should have immedietly put peace-keeping troops in South Ossetia and Abkhazia, and other parts of occupied Georgia, and force the Russians out if nescesarry. Whether they want to admit it or not, Russia is scared of the U.S. and NATO. Exactly why they are trying to increase there sphere of influence.

With U.S.-Russian relations cooling very quick, having a pro-U.S. country bordering Russia, looks very intimidating, and of course, with Putin still running Russia, they will come up with the most ridiculous reasons for things.

Russia has officially threatened Poland with nuclear weapons, and the international community is sorta just letting that slide by. Im betting 3 years ago, we wouldn't.

Something deeper is going on here.





Personally I would hope that we could get along. Can anyone explain WHY we can't get along? Is the US/NATO just a big bully or is Russia just impossible to befriend?
Click to expand...


Russia is the bully. They are trying to increase there sphere of influence and they are going after the countries where NATO forces can land in case of confrontation.

The cold war is back, and its back with a vengence.
 

Georgia started the military activity in hopes of a quick reclamation of South Ossetia. It was a calculated move that exploded in their face.
 

Well, Bush could give them a lecture about how this is the 21st century and the days of invading other nations are over and wars kill people and it's not right for one nation to attack and invade another nation if its not in defense or with international approval.
 


He tried.


But Bush isn't very popular in the international community, and even though he may run the stongest country in the world, the rest of the world sees him as a joke.
 
While the facts demonstrate that Georgia's President Saakashvili initiated hostilities by launching a military operation to resolve the status of South Ossetia and Russia responded militarily as it pledged to do so under such circumstances, there is no credible evidence at all that the U.S. was cheerleading President Saakashvili in a bid to promote the prospects of one of its Presidential candidates (implied to be Senator McCain given that McCain represents the Republican Party). Prime Minister Putin's allegation is absurd, to say the least.

Although Russia has legitimate interests and a vested stake in the outcome of the situation, Prime Minister Putin displayed the kind of heavy-handedness for which the Soviets were notorious. Prime Minister Putin's outburst further undermines prospects for constructive diplomacy aimed at solidifying the Sarkozy ceasefire and then creating a transparent political mechanism for resolving the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. At the same time, it raises real concerns as to what Russia's leadership is thinking and the concerns are amplified by the dualistic role President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin play.

In the end, while the U.S. and its allies should be open to the kind of constructive diplomacy cited above pertaining to the Sarkozy ceasefire agreement and development of an agreed political process for resolving the status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, the U.S. and its allies need to be absolutely firm in resisting Russian efforts to overreach. They need to refrain from the kind of posturing in which Prime Minister Putin engaged. Instead, they must make abundantly clear that they will not retreat from the need for full implementation of the Sarkozy ceasefire plan and creation of a political process for addressing the final status of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. They need to be firm that Russia will not be permitted to unilaterally impose a solution on the region or encroach on the security of NATO's members. If the parties and peoples involved ultimately opt for sovereignty or an autonomy arrangement within Georgia is not feasible (the more likely outcome in the wake of President Saakashvili's military move) in the end, then so be it. What should not happen is that Russia creates such an outcome before a thorough and transparent political process plays out.

At the same time, it will be critical that emotions don't lead to illogical decisionmaking. Where there is opportunity for cooperation or need for cooperation, it will be important that the West remains open to such arrangements. Common interests concern Iran's nuclear program, the ongoing struggle with radical Islamism, and open trade in energy resources.

Finally, even as the U.S. and West lay out their red lines, they also need to fully engage China and the world's other leading powers. The U.S. and West can ill afford to alienate China and give Russia an opportunity to begin to forge a Russia-China alliance that could, especially in the years ahead, dramatically transform the world's balance of power.
 
Last edited:

You've already been shammed in another thread with such non sequiturs. Were you hoping that you could repeat them here and get away with it?
 
ARealConservative said:
Georgia started the military activity in hopes of a quick reclamation of South Ossetia. It was a calculated move that exploded in their face.
Click to expand...

Are you sure it wasn't provoked by Russia? Remember, their occupiers had been there for more than a decade. Also, it didn't take long to get a large number of troops and materiel into the country. Suggest to me that they had something premeditated in mind. Remember the warnings they gave back in February when some Western countries recognized Kosovo independence? Lest we forget, they specifically mentioned South Ossetia and Abkhazia at the time.
 

Yes, I'm sure. South Ossetia was only a part of Georgia because Stalin changed the boundaries.....likely to make it more difficult for Georgia to break free. South Ossetians have more allegiance towards Russia then they do Georgia.

Both Georgia and Russia have been performing troop buildups for some time, so the ability for quick strikes by either side should not be a surprise.
 

scourge99 said:
You've already been shammed in another thread with such non sequiturs. Were you hoping that you could repeat them here and get away with it?
Click to expand...

It does sound kind of silly coming from him, doesn't it? But that was about what he (or his administration) said.
 
A hypocrit can be right.

I know, everyone is tired of it. The country can do without all the hypocrisy, but between a hypocritical government and a corrupt government, I'd take the hypocritical one. At least they would get it right every once and a while.

For example: would you rather have Bush, the hypocrit who invaded Iraq, say "bad bad russia, you shouldn't invade other nations!", or would you have bush say "Good russia! Good Putin! You is Awesome! You're just like me, I LURVE you Pooty!"(kisses Putin, with tongue and all).
 

And Crimea was given to Ukraine at about the same time. Will you then justify future Russian military action in Ukraine?
 
ludahai said:
And Crimea was given to Ukraine at about the same time. Will you then justify future Russian military action in Ukraine?
Click to expand...

What are you talking about?

The South Ossetians broke free of Georgia the same time Georgia broke free of Russia.

If Crimea wants to be free and independent, I'll support that. Not with my life, or the lives of our military, but certainly in spirit I will support there desire for self determination.

Heaven forbid that people get the government they want. :roll:
 

Why stop there. Let's give Hawaii, Taiwan, and anybody else who wants it independence.. Hell, when Arizona and California contain a majority of illegal immigrants it should seed (cede) to Mexico. I'm sure Mexico would be more than willing to fund dissidents and activists for such a gain.
 

I'll support that. Not with my life, or the lives of our military, but certainly in spirit I will support there desire for self determination.

You interventionists will never get it. "Let's give" was nowhere in my discussion.
 

That's true, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas look like old world colonialism to the Mexican point of view.
 

Taiwan already is independent. It has its own government and no other state has a legal claim of sovereignty over the island.
 
Iriemon said:
That's true, California, Arizona, New Mexico and Texas look like old world colonialism to the Mexican point of view.
Click to expand...

Well, then perhaps next time, Mexican forces will stay on their own side of the border. Heck, even after Mexico started the war the U.S. STILL paid them for the land.
 
ARealConservative said:
Georgia started the military activity in hopes of a quick reclamation of South Ossetia. It was a calculated move that exploded in their face.
Click to expand...

Georgia has a legal claim on South Ossetia and the Russian response, which was obvious to anyone not willingly suspending disbelief, was coordinated, well planned, pre-staged and overwhelming. This is hardly a case of Russians wanting to protect a nation in the interest of their independence is it? Can you honestly make that case?

It begs the question of those, like you, who desire to defend the SOVIET response; do you believe that Russia has the right to put down the Chechen's in their desire for independence? They have wanted it ever since the Soviet Union imploded. Suggesting that Georgia does not have the right to retain a part of their country is contrary to agreeing that Russia can keep the Chechen's within their sphere of influence.

If it is okay for the Russian to put down Chechen revolts, why is it suddenly belligerent for Democratic Georgia to do the same with its former states?
 
ludahai said:
Taiwan already is independent. It has its own government and no other state has a legal claim of sovereignty over the island.
Click to expand...

They do have a Government; however, they are not diplomatically recognized by the world community in deference to the Communist Chinese who still lay claim to Taiwan.

The world, in fear of what Communist China may do and in a pacifist desire to not provoke them, choose to NOT recognize Taiwan as independent.

The notion that this is independence is in mind only, not on paper thanks to Communist China who, I might add, will never allow legal recognition of Taiwan as an independent state as long as there is a Communist China.

By the way, many of those products made in China take jobs away from Taiwan. Did you know most of these products used to come from Taiwan? But with their growth the cost of doing business there has gone up so many manufacturers have moved to the slave labor provided by Communist China.

I keep hearing the arguments that China has opened up and allowed Capitalism. Yet no one is willing to quote the facts that only the Chinese Government can own land, that the amount of land devoted to capitalist enterprise is tiny in comparison to the China as a whole and it begs the question, how and who does the Chinese Communist decide which capitalist can benefit from the fruits of the slave labor provided by the Communists?

The notion that China is more "capitalist" can only be expressed in tiny percentages from the past and now into the present. But it is hardly evident in the major parts of the country still living on subsistence with controls on how many children they can have, where they can live and work and how much they get paid.
 
ARealConservative said:
I'll support that. Not with my life, or the lives of our military, but certainly in spirit I will support there desire for self determination.

You interventionists will never get it. "Let's give" was nowhere in my discussion.
Click to expand...

The government gets to decide these things, not a MINORITY of the population. If the MAJORITY of a country decides its OK for a section of the country to secede then so be it but such notions that a minority section of a country can have their way without going through the proper procedures and checks and balances seems contrary to the basic foundations of any free country.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…