We do not know how this will end but so far it is exactly how a writer would portray the beginning of a nuclear war.

youngdan wrote:

We do not know how this will end but so far it is exactly how a writer would portray the beginning of a nuclear war.

I've not been reading or listening about it other than what's here on most of this thread up until the nuclear war bit .. - feckin hell, first 'The Sarah Connor Chronicles' and now this about nuclear war ..

And RTE news saying the Americans said that their relations with Russia were 'damaged' ... is it time to stock up on the baked beans and lead again?

Yes immediately. Be carefull not to get mixed up or you will end up shooting the girlfriend while you are asleep.

Slightly off topic.

It'll be interesting, should the US go to war with Russia, to see if our government will still allow Shannon to be used as a staging point. It's my bet that they won't. Tis one thing to aid in obliterating defenceless nations, it's quite another to commit an act of war against a party that'll kick your arse without raising a sweat.

Back on topic:

Anyone seen this yet?
LINK

Hermes. You must be in your 20s. It was taken for granted in the 80s that should a war come that it would be advisable not to be downwind of Shannon. You should take to wearing strong sunglasses as well even on cloudy days.

Those exercises in the link ended a few weeks ago but they did take place. The US still had over 100 advisers and indeed I have seen reports of black casualties. The Russians are taunting that the Americans advised them to run away.

A friend of mine is married to a woman who's sister is married to a confidant of Putin. It is reported that Putin said to Bush "The war is started now you f uck off" In English no less so there would be no misunderstanding.

Read this http://www.viewzone.com/yamantau.html

They have 200 of these and this one is as big as the area enclosed by the Beltway Highway around DC.
They are ready for the nukes. Are you.

Squire wrote:

Lestat wrote:

But the Georgians did not attack Russia.

Come on you know fine well what they did and you know also Russia's obligations.

Yes, the Georgians attempted to reassert sovereignty over their own territory. According to the Swedish foreign mimister the Russians had no legal justification in intervening.

I would presume that the Georgians are not waiting for the Swedes to ride to the rescue. That will teach them to try to hold these people against their will. They killed thousands so hang that fool on a tree and let the dogs eat him.

The reality is that for some reason, as yet unclear, Georgia decided on military action. The reality is people got killed unnecessarily because of it, and it is equally real that that action involved attacking Russian troops. Equally obvious is the Russian response. It would be sort of equivalent to the Unionists in the North trying to ethnically cleanse West of the Bann. Disputed territory and all that and not part of Ireland? How would we feel?

So you have to ask why did they go down this path? Obviously this would be the Russian response. Obviously the Russians would hammer the Georgian army. Where the Georgians set up? Who set them up? Did the USA give them the nod? If so who and for what reason? Was it some Georgian madness and if so whose?

We need to get to the bottom of this, and get whoever is responsible (friend or foe) should be brought into the Hague to face charges. That is the proper course instead of bleating on about Russia. That way we help build some trust between ourselves and the Russians and if we want long term security that is the course to take.

I have been to Russia, done some business there. IMO what matters most to Russians is rebuilding their own country and their security. I don't think they are interested in rebuilding an empire. Why would they want Poland back, they have all the resources they need. However they are a proud people and will not stand by and let what they see as Russian citizens be slaughtered.

Whoever instigated this attack needs to be prosecuted.

The reply you are going get Squire is:

Chechnya

small ethnic minority within Russia as a whole - wanted increasing autonomy and independence from a majority with whom they had little in common with.

What was Russia's response? - who went to the Hague to answer for it?

Whats the difference ?- Russia is far larger than Georgia and can impose "Facts on the Ground"

I do business with Russia - I work with 4 Russians directly in my own company - great blokes including 2 brilliant software engineers and designers who worked for Russian Strategic Nuclear command - But there is a serious difference between the ordinary Russian and the empire rebuilders in the Kremlin and what they are doing is not without popular support.

Russians are seriously patriotic people - to the extent that patrotism can be used very effectively to mask a host of internal problems - Russians are the most fatalistic fuckers on the planet too - why else would they tolerate the leadership they get in what most be historically the least fertile area of Europe for democracy.

They want respect - but they believe it flows out of the barrel of gun and mistake kowtowing for genuine friendship - very like the Americans in a way it must be said.

There is no question that the Georgians fired the first significant shots in this affair. However the first casualty in war is always the truth and in this conflict where the Russians are doing themselves no favours with the tight censorship and media exclusion from their side - I would wait for the Fog of War to lift a little before making serious accusations - there will be plenty of hypocriscy to go around for everybody in the end.

Squire wrote:

The reality is that for some reason, as yet unclear, Georgia decided on military action. The reality is people got killed unnecessarily because of it, and it is equally real that that action involved attacking Russian troops. Equally obvious is the Russian response. It would be sort of equivalent to the Unionists in the North trying to ethnically cleanse West of the Bann. Disputed territory and all that and not part of Ireland? How would we feel?

So you have to ask why did they go down this path? Obviously this would be the Russian response. Obviously the Russians would hammer the Georgian army. Where the Georgians set up? Who set them up? Did the USA give them the nod? If so who and for what reason? Was it some Georgian madness and if so whose?

We need to get to the bottom of this, and get whoever is responsible (friend or foe) should be brought into the Hague to face charges. That is the proper course instead of bleating on about Russia. That way we help build some trust between ourselves and the Russians and if we want long term security that is the course to take.

I have been to Russia, done some business there. IMO what matters most to Russians is rebuilding their own country and their security. I don't think they are interested in rebuilding an empire. Why would they want Poland back, they have all the resources they need. However they are a proud people and will not stand by and let what they see as Russian citizens be slaughtered.

Whoever instigated this attack needs to be prosecuted.

The US is saying they advised Saakashvili not to do it. That seems to be an admission that he has discussed his intentions with them. He may have a story to tell about the US. There is a lot of talk about him being dropped, which doesn't seem to put to much weight on the Georgians' votes. If I were him I would be sleeping in a bullet proof vest.

I am posting Hermes' linked wiki page in case it disappears (after my recent bad experience).

Quote :

1000 US Soldiers in Georgia from Jul 15 to Aug 8 2008
From Wikileaks
Jump to: navigation, search
Do you have access to similar documents? Let us know.

Unless otherwise specified the document described here:

Was first publicly revealed by Wikileaks working with our source.
At that time was classified, confidential, censored or otherwise withheld from the public.
Is of political, diplomatic, ethical or historical significance.
Any questions about this documents veracity are noted. Fewer than 0.1% of documents that pass initial triage fail subsequent analysis (typically developing world election material).
The summary is approved by the editorial board.
To sponsor reportage of this document by mainstream journalists submit a targeted donation.

For press enquiries, see our media kit.

If you have similar or updated material ACT NOW.
File

1000-us-marines-in-georgia-2008.zip (click to view full file)
1000-us-marines-in-georgia-2008.zip (alternative address)
Analysis
Carefully assess this document and post your findings.
Summary

Photos and descriptions of Joint exercises in the republic of Georgia, known as "Operation Immediate Response 2008".

http://gadod.net/archives/v/Vaziani/ Immediate Response 2008" at Vaziani Military Base

Soldiers and Marines from the United States, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, and Ukraine conduct joint training exercise "Immediate Response 2008" at Vaziani Military Base in the Republic of Georgia and the surrounding area. The state of Georgia is represented by the 1st Battalion, 121st Infantry, headquartered in Winder, as well as members of the 122nd Rear Operations Center from Glenville. "

This 'training exercise' took place at the Vaziani Military Base, and was to run for 3 weeks from July 15th, Until roughly August 8th, which is precisely when the fighting broke out.
Context
United States
Military or intelligence (ruling)
Wikileaks release date

Monday August 11, 2008
Primary language

English
Note

Public, though obscure, information, not a leak, but released here due to keep the public record about this important event accurate.
File size in bytes

724621
File type information

Zip archive data, at least v2.0 to extract
Cryptographic identity

SHA256 ef8e092a12f95ddc774531812b17f24c7a0122ab7e0818a1945ec3c8f42adf96

Here is a link to a Fox News item.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ&eurl=http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=39821&p=13139

There is something about this that just does not add up. Bar utter insanity I cannot make sense of this. Even if separatists attacked Georgian troops someone had to have ordered a major response and on face value the consequences were inevitable. Did anyone have an implied agreement?

If the Americans were in the know and had advised Georgia against then did they advise anyone else to expect slaughter and if not why not? What did they do to try to prevent this?

There is a whiff from this that is less pleasant than a month old barrel of mackerel.

Ah Fox

We shudda got that girl on the No Spin Zone!! Bill could have threatened to beat her up.

Squire wrote:

Here is a link to a Fox News item.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ&eurl=http://www.politics.ie/viewtopic.php?f=79&t=39821&p=13139

There is something about this that just does not add up. Bar utter insanity I cannot make sense of this. Even if separatists attacked Georgian troops someone had to have ordered a major response and on face value the consequences were inevitable. Did anyone have an implied agreement?

If the Americans were in the know and had advised Georgia against then did they advise anyone else to expect slaughter and if not why not? What did they do to try to prevent this?

There is a whiff from this that is less pleasant than a month old barrel of mackerel.

Yes. The little American/S Ossetian girl in the Fox News video was sitting in a cafe in South Ossetia when Georgian bombs started to drop with no warning.

Why are you confused. The Georgian thought he had backup and got the go ahead. He hardly thought he could beat Russia on his own. He was used. He is a pawn and pawns are sacrificed in every game. If he had read a few history books he would know what happened to the Hmong and many more. I would describe him as a little big man. They are the easiest to fool.

The Russians have sent psychiatrists in to South Ossetia to repair the emotional damage (RT).

cactus flower wrote:

The Russians have sent psychiatrists in to South Ossetia to repair the emotional damage (RT).

Interesting background (I've put the link on the gas and oil thread)

Quote :

Since Margolis' warning last November (2002), the power balance has shifted back in the US direction. The US now has troops positioned in Georgia, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan, effectively balancing the presence of Russian troops and pipelines in Central Asia. It would appear that, so far, cooler heads in both Moscow and Washington have moved to avoid a head-on conflict in either Afghanistan or the Caspian basin.
Powerful oil development interests in Texas have had their eyes on Central Asian oil reserves for over two decades, and this may have been a factor in the Reagan-Bush strategy (otherwise questionable from the point of view of world stability) of helping to break up the former Soviet Union.

The wake of that break-up has seen a frenzied oil boom in the Caspian and trans-Caspian republics -- the biggest such oil boom in forty years. American oil companies such as Chevron have played a dominant role in this development. The increased interest in the oil and gas has naturally led to increased planning on how to get the resources out.

For the West, two major alternatives have presented themselves: the so-called Western Pipeline (to the Black Sea or even across the Balkans), and the Eastern Pipeline, via either Iran (the easier route, geographically speaking) or Afghanistan.

The Taliban's rise to power in Afghanistan can be linked to the same "single, golden theme" which Michael Griffin (Reaping the Whirlwind, 115) has discerned in the conflicts in Nagorno-Karabakh, Abkhazia, Turkish Kurdistan and Chechnya: "each represented a distinct, tactical move, crucial at the time, in discerning which power would ultimately become master of the pipelines which, some time in this century, will transport the oil and gas from the Caspian basin to an energy-avid world."
...

This is so blatant Riadach. You can look for yourself. Tschkinvali is devasted and Gori is intact.

BBC photographs

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44920000/jpg/_44920210_06_ap.jpg

CNN video - CNN shown using photographs of Tschkinvali ruins and claiming it was Gori.





Link to Guardian report on attack on South Ossetia by Georgia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/10/georgia.russia5

ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558619.stm

The BBC says that "barely a building in Tschkinvali escaped damage".

From what I have seen on hundreds of photos and images on the internet today, Tchkinvali is destroyed and Gori seems to have been hit by one or two bombs that missed the Gori military base.

Look at this lucky escape. The Turks knew how to duck
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/14/journalists.shot/index.html

cactus flower wrote:

This is so blatant Riadach. You can look for yourself. Tschkinvali is devasted and Gori is intact.

BBC photographs

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/44920000/jpg/_44920210_06_ap.jpg

Indeed that building is destroyed. However, is it a civilian or military/administrative structure?

Quote :

CNN video - CNN shown using photographs of Tschkinvali ruins and claiming it was Gori.

Ok, firstly, could either of us tell for certain whether those pictures were Gori or Tskinvali? I know I can't, I don#t have comparative photographs to make that judgement. Do you? Given that the majority of Russian Today viewers, given their medium, are neither Georgians nor Ossetians, would they? Who is the Cameramen? Do the statements, praising the actions of the Russian Army, indicate a possible bias?


The fact is, although the point is worth considering, I doubt either of us can prove beyond doubt that Rt or CNN engaged in intentional propaganda in this instance. What we can determine, is although the damage depicted does show that intense conflict had occurred which we had known already be it Gori or Tskhinvali, it in no way proves that ethnic cleansing was carried out in such an area.I still stand by my statement, that Russia sending psychiatrists there sounds to me like a cynical act.

Quote :

Link to Guardian report on attack on South Ossetia by Georgia.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/10/georgia.russia5

cactus flower wrote:

ttp://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7558619.stm

The BBC says that "barely a building in Tschkinvali escaped damage".

From what I have seen on hundreds of photos and images on the internet today, Tchkinvali is destroyed and Gori seems to have been hit by one or two bombs that missed the Gori military base.

Have you links to these photos? Would you agree that damage should be expected in a war that involves street by street fighting. Does this necessarily imply ethnic cleansing?

I think those who see this conflict as an American inspired attempt to undermine Russian authority in this region should ask themselves one simple question. What had America to lose by starting this war, and what had Russia to gain? Consider the pipeline when answering this question.

Perhaps consider also a client state that is now totally dependant on your presence.

Russia has not over run Georgia so what exactly have they gained? A supportive population that was slaughtered and fled north and whose houses have been destroyed. That just does not make sense. Why would they allow such destruction if they had planned this? They are not stupid.

There is a foul game afoot. We will probably not get to the bottom of who did what, in what order and why, but I don't think there is any doubt now that Georgia did launch a major offensive and it would appear that the USA had prior knowledge.

There is something in all this that just does not add up. Either there is something very clever and cynical, or just perhaps it maybe a major blunder by an idiot.

Still think we should be calling for justice.

Squire wrote:

Perhaps consider also a client state that is now totally dependant on your presence.

Russia has not over run Georgia so what exactly have they gained? A supportive population that was slaughtered and fled north and whose houses have been destroyed. That just does not make sense. Why would they allow such destruction if they had planned this? They are not stupid.

Russia will now be calling for Saakashvilli's head, who has been a thorn in their attempts to reassert hegemony over the region since Eduard Shevardnadze corrupt undemocratic regime was overthrown. They now can exert influence over the next elected president by reminding the Georgian people of what happened the last time the showed defiance. This could lead to Saakashvilli being overthrown, and a more submissive regime being elected which may not be so in favour of its western connections. Hence no nato, and a strategic oil pipeline in eastern-leaning hands.

As for the slaughtering of innocents, one really has to assess independently how many casualties were suffered and how much damage was done in order to make an assessment on 'was it worth it?'. In the world of superpowers, and I include both the U.S. and Russia in this, strategic interest takes pre-eminence over local suffering.

Quote :

There is a foul game afoot. We will probably not get to the bottom of who did what, in what order and why, but I don't think there is any doubt now that Georgia did launch a major offensive and it would appear that the USA had prior knowledge.

How could they have though? What idiot would persuade a country, in which they had a strategic oil pipeline, to attack another country in a losing war in which their strategic interest would be in danger? I know there are a few dúramáin within the American administration at the moment, but this would really take the biscuit.

Quote :

There is something in all this that just does not add up. Either there is something very clever and cynical, or just perhaps it maybe a major blunder by an idiot.

Still think we should be calling for justice.

I don't think Saakashvilli is an idiot. I do think his hand was forced though.