search pnForum latest posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts Note: Registered users can subscribe to notifications about new posts

to previous topic Print topic to next topic

Start ::  Cornwall24 Discussion ::  The Rest of the World ::  WWIII inevitable?
Moderated by: Admins

Goto page : Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page
Bottom 

WWIII inevitable?

Taran Posted: 02.09.2008, 15:51

Taran

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 305

Status: offline
last visit: 20.11.08
icon_eek
ICantReadOk. Give me a good reason why it should not be in NATO


You are having me on aren't you?

How about :
Quoteit would be insane to pitch NATO into the likely situation of direct military confrontation with Russia

Top  Profile send PM
 
Coady Posted: 02.09.2008, 16:42

Coady

registered: May. 2006
Posts: 2058

Status: offline
last visit: 21.11.08
Zimbabwe should be in Nato.

Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia and was British.

Robert Mugabe is our friend

Let him into nato.

ILoveRobert.

We live in interesting times.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Taran Posted: 02.09.2008, 19:28

Taran

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 305

Status: offline
last visit: 20.11.08
Actually IloveHelston, I have been looking back at this thread and realised something.

My replies to your posts have become more and more intemperate, patronising and verging on the abusive. Yours on the other hand have been nothing but civil.

They may have been irritating, naive and infuriatingly simplistic, but civil nonetheless. Therefore I offer you my unreserved apology.

That being said, I would simply ask that you try and think about the issue a bit more and pay more attention to what has been said previously, you will find that all your simple questions have been answered multiple times and with many examples.
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 02.09.2008, 20:09



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
Taran icon_eek
ICantReadOk. Give me a good reason why it should not be in NATO


You are having me on aren't you?

How about :
Quoteit would be insane to pitch NATO into the likely situation of direct military confrontation with Russia



Because Russia has invaded Georgia and still has it's troops in Georgia?>
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 02.09.2008, 20:10



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
CoadyZimbabwe should be in Nato.

Zimbabwe used to be Rhodesia and was British.

Robert Mugabe is our friend

Let him into nato.

ILoveRobert.

Well Zimbabwe is not a democracy


so

no

it should not be in NATO
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 02.09.2008, 20:11



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
TaranActually IloveHelston, I have been looking back at this thread and realised something.

My replies to your posts have become more and more intemperate, patronising and verging on the abusive. Yours on the other hand have been nothing but civil.

They may have been irritating, naive and infuriatingly simplistic, but civil nonetheless. Therefore I offer you my unreserved apology.

That being said, I would simply ask that you try and think about the issue a bit more and pay more attention to what has been said previously, you will find that all your simple questions have been answered multiple times and with many examples.


You do not say.

I am merely confused as to why you do not feel Georgia deserves protection
Top  Profile send PM
 
Taran Posted: 02.09.2008, 21:08

Taran

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 305

Status: offline
last visit: 20.11.08
ilovehelstonYou do not say


Now... That was ungracious.

ilovehelstonI am merely confused as to why you do not feel Georgia deserves protection


The problem here is that Georgia may well have had to suffer the ignominy of having the troops of its old imperial, and later soviet masters on its soil, but there was a reason for that.

They had fought two unsuccessful civil wars in 1990 in the two territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The UN agreed to Russian troops acting there as peacekeepers. Some may say that was a case of letting the wolf look after the sheep. Whatever your feelings on that issue, an uneasy peace was largely kept for a decade and a half with this arrangement.

Then along comes Saakashvili who comes to power after a coup and a subsequent election, on a nationalist ticket saying he is going to create a single Georgia incorporating the territories of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ajaria. These territories were autonomous from Georgia for centuries under first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. Ajaria was relatively to put down easy and has now been incorporated.

The other two were a different matter.

Read the "Der Spiegel" article I linked to for a timeline of the problems.

The problem we have today started in earnest during the night of the 7th when Georgian troops started an artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinval while its residents were in bed. This would ensure maximum civilian casualties. They also shelled the peacekeepers base killing 20 Russian soldiers.

The action may have been a desperate or stupid miscalculation on Saakashvili's part, or maybe it was a cynical ploy by his American backers. We will not know the answer to that, but we can certainly speculate as America manifestly gains the most from this in the short term. Either way it resulted in a large part of the Gerogian military being destroyed.

There could only ever have been one response to the Georgian military action whilst Georgia was not a NATO member.

So why did Saakashvili throw it all away on the 7th August. If he had waited patiently another year or so he might have got his way, if the Americans could have convinced the French, Germans and Italians that Georgia was a good nation to have in the club. As it is, his actions resulted in his military getting a severe battering, his country split even more firmly and the Russians encamped in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in even bigger numbers than before with his soldiers removed from those territories and his military under threat of extinction. His hoped for NATO membership is also much further off than if he had done nothing, because now NATO would have to face off a Russian "occupation" if they were to accept Gerogia. Possibly the most dangerous situation to put itself in since the Cuban Missile crisis.
Top  Profile send PM
 
P_Trembath Posted: 02.09.2008, 21:57

P_Trembath

registered: Oct. 2006
Posts: 1065

Status: online
ilovehelston
P_Trembath
ilovehelston
TaranOf course, you are right Coady. But I was responding to ILH's juvenile bleating.

Also major changes like these are not usually acceptable with such a minimal turnout. To claim a "mandate" from such a pathetically small slice of the population seems a little brave, even for Saakashvili.



Well, he was elected.

And the fact is Georgia voted to join NATO.


Did they vote to join, or did they vote to apply to join?

Do you become a member just because you say you want to, or do the existing members get to have a say in the matter?



they vote to join. And Why should they not join?


So your saying that if Russia were to vote to join NATO, then they should automatically become members?


How about China?

Or Iran?



Kernow Kensa!


Our day will come!


"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 02.09.2008, 22:02



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
Taran
ilovehelstonYou do not say


Now... That was ungracious.

ilovehelstonI am merely confused as to why you do not feel Georgia deserves protection


The problem here is that Georgia may well have had to suffer the ignominy of having the troops of its old imperial, and later soviet masters on its soil, but there was a reason for that.

They had fought two unsuccessful civil wars in 1990 in the two territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The UN agreed to Russian troops acting there as peacekeepers. Some may say that was a case of letting the wolf look after the sheep. Whatever your feelings on that issue, an uneasy peace was largely kept for a decade and a half with this arrangement.

Then along comes Saakashvili who comes to power after a coup and a subsequent election, on a nationalist ticket saying he is going to create a single Georgia incorporating the territories of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Ajaria. These territories were autonomous from Georgia for centuries under first the Russian Empire and then the Soviet Union. Ajaria was relatively to put down easy and has now been incorporated.

The other two were a different matter.

Read the "Der Spiegel" article I linked to for a timeline of the problems.

The problem we have today started in earnest during the night of the 7th when Georgian troops started an artillery barrage on the city of Tskhinval while its residents were in bed. This would ensure maximum civilian casualties. They also shelled the peacekeepers base killing 20 Russian soldiers.

The action may have been a desperate or stupid miscalculation on Saakashvili's part, or maybe it was a cynical ploy by his American backers. We will not know the answer to that, but we can certainly speculate as America manifestly gains the most from this in the short term. Either way it resulted in a large part of the Gerogian military being destroyed.

There could only ever have been one response to the Georgian military action whilst Georgia was not a NATO member.

So why did Saakashvili throw it all away on the 7th August. If he had waited patiently another year or so he might have got his way, if the Americans could have convinced the French, Germans and Italians that Georgia was a good nation to have in the club. As it is, his actions resulted in his military getting a severe battering, his country split even more firmly and the Russians encamped in Abkhazia and South Ossetia in even bigger numbers than before with his soldiers removed from those territories and his military under threat of extinction. His hoped for NATO membership is also much further off than if he had done nothing, because now NATO would have to face off a Russian "occupation" if they were to accept Gerogia. Possibly the most dangerous situation to put itself in since the Cuban Missile crisis.



There is NO reason for being invaded. NONE!!


And how exactly does USA gain from this war between two countries which are thousands of miles from its borders?
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 02.09.2008, 22:03



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
P_Trembath
ilovehelston
P_Trembath
ilovehelston
TaranOf course, you are right Coady. But I was responding to ILH's juvenile bleating.

Also major changes like these are not usually acceptable with such a minimal turnout. To claim a "mandate" from such a pathetically small slice of the population seems a little brave, even for Saakashvili.



Well, he was elected.

And the fact is Georgia voted to join NATO.


Did they vote to join, or did they vote to apply to join?

Do you become a member just because you say you want to, or do the existing members get to have a say in the matter?



they vote to join. And Why should they not join?


So your saying that if Russia were to vote to join NATO, then they should automatically become members?


How about China?

Or Iran?


They are undemocratic countries
Top  Profile send PM
 
P_Trembath Posted: 02.09.2008, 22:49

P_Trembath

registered: Oct. 2006
Posts: 1065

Status: online
ilovehelston
P_TrembathSo your saying that if Russia were to vote to join NATO, then they should automatically become members?


How about China?

Or Iran?


They are undemocratic countries


What has that got to do with it?

The question was if they voted to join NATO, does that automatically make them members?



Kernow Kensa!


Our day will come!


"Everyone has their own particular part to play. No part is too great or too small, no one is too old or too young to do something."
Top  Profile send PM
 
Taran Posted: 03.09.2008, 08:50

Taran

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 305

Status: offline
last visit: 20.11.08
ilovehelstonThere is NO reason for being invaded. NONE!!


Technically Russia did not invade. It had peacekeping troops on the ground in Georgia. These were attacked and killed by Georgian forces. The Russians then responded to the Georgian aggressive acts. Russian troops have now pulled back to their previous positions. Technically there is no invasion.

You point about invasion is far too general.

NATO invaded Serbia and unilaterally declared Kosovo independent. They did not previously have troops stationed there.
NATO invaded Afghanistan. They did not previously have troops established there.

America and Britain invaded Iraq. There are no excuses for that one.
Israel invaded Lebanon.

You have also not attempted to answer any of the questions I put, merely retreated to making trite generalisations.

ilovehelstonThey are undemocratic countries


NO, both Russia and Iran are democratic. Their governmants are elected by by a popular, open vote by the population. Their elections are scrutinised by external observers.

ilovehelstonAnd how exactly does USA gain from this war between two countries which are thousands of miles from its borders?


That has already been answered many times. Please reread the posts above. Have you read the posts?



edited by: Taran, Sep 03, 2008 - 08:52 AM
Top  Profile send PM
 
Coady Posted: 03.09.2008, 09:22

Coady

registered: May. 2006
Posts: 2058

Status: offline
last visit: 21.11.08
Hmmm, Zimbabwe IS a democracy, it's just that Mr. Mugabe seems to have a strange idea of how to run it as such.
Russia is a democracy too isn't it?

We live in interesting times.
Top  Profile send PM
 
ilovehelston Posted: 03.09.2008, 19:04



registered: Mar. 2008
Posts: 972

Status: offline
last visit: 11.11.08
Taran
ilovehelstonThere is NO reason for being invaded. NONE!!


Technically Russia did not invade. It had peacekeping troops on the ground in Georgia. These were attacked and killed by Georgian forces. The Russians then responded to the Georgian aggressive acts. Russian troops have now pulled back to their previous positions. Technically there is no invasion.

You point about invasion is far too general.

NATO invaded Serbia and unilaterally declared Kosovo independent. They did not previously have troops stationed there.
NATO invaded Afghanistan. They did not previously have troops established there.

America and Britain invaded Iraq. There are no excuses for that one.
Israel invaded Lebanon.

You have also not attempted to answer any of the questions I put, merely retreated to making trite generalisations.

ilovehelstonThey are undemocratic countries


NO, both Russia and Iran are democratic. Their governmants are elected by by a popular, open vote by the population. Their elections are scrutinised by external observers.

ilovehelstonAnd how exactly does USA gain from this war between two countries which are thousands of miles from its borders?


That has already been answered many times. Please reread the posts above. Have you read the posts?edited by: Taran, Sep 03, 2008 - 08:52 AM




Why should Russia be in Georgian soveriegn territory?

How is Russia and Iran democratic? Iran is a religious theocrartic state
Top  Profile send PM
 
Taran Posted: 04.09.2008, 09:04

Taran

registered: Jun. 2007
Posts: 305

Status: offline
last visit: 20.11.08
You haven't answered any of my questions.

I have already answered the first of yours many times. Please reread the posts particularly those pertaining to the Georgian Civil war in 1990-91 and the aftermath of that.

Russia is democratic because it elects its MP's. Russia is a bougeois liberal democracy along the same lines as any of the other main European nations. Their democracy and economic system are the same as that in the France of Germany. I think you are mistaking Russia for the Soviet Union.

Iran is democratic for the same reason. Iran has the complication that it is a theocracy and they can intervene, but on whole the government of Iran is there with popular support and elected by the populace. therefore the Government is democratic.
Top  Profile send PM
 
Goto page : Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 Next Page


Users online:
marhak - ThomasLeigh - Allister - GrahamHart - Shiner - P_Trembath - pricey - Nev - Sir-Francis-Basset

This list bases on the users active in the last 60 minutes
Cornwall24 2006 (c) web design & web hosting by a-connect
Sponsors: Cornwall hotels, Cornwall self-catering, Cornwall restaurant guide,Devon
Cornwall 24 news feed
Cornwall 24 News and Views