Sudetenland 2.0

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Sudetenland 2.0

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Tue 12 Aug, 2008 02:06 am
Do you recall reading of the Nazi invasion in history class?

Fighting with Russia spreads to cities across Georgia - CNN.com

Rise and Fall covers the invasion rather well; I'd sight the pages if I could find my copy.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 05:08 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
There was one point that I take exception to that surfaced for a short period, and that is of the 'hypocrasy' of the United states in supporting Georgia.

A russian reporter asked how it is that the U.S. could criticize them for invading Georgia to 'create a defense bubble for their people in danger' when they had invaded Iraq for the same reason, and this was taken seriously by a number of 'journalists'!

Russia has been encouraging the citizens of Georgia living in South Osetia for months to become russian citizens and has been handing out passports to these anti georgian elements to make thir citizenship legitimate. Once a sufficent number of people in S. Osetia were Russian citizens, they began provoking georgia with small arms fire, which Georgia did not initially respond to. Upon the non response, these 'rebels' took further liberties until Georgia could no longer ignore it(kinda like if back in school that huge kid you knew you couldn't beat in a fight started messing with you more and more until you couldn't take it). The second Georgia made an attempt to fight back, Russia jumped on them for 'endangering the welfare of russian citizens'. Remind you of anything? Hitler declared the german nationals in the sudetenland german citizens and then declared it necessary for the wellfare of german citizens that they be liberated from the control of non german entities to justify his invasion.

Putin has been silencing the journalist Another Dead Journalist - WSJ.com
 
FatalMuse
 
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 05:35 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
There was one point that I take exception to that surfaced for a short period, and that is of the 'hypocrasy' of the United states in supporting Georgia.

A russian reporter asked how it is that the U.S. could criticize them for invading Georgia to 'create a defense bubble for their people in danger' when they had invaded Iraq for the same reason, and this was taken seriously by a number of 'journalists'!


But the heart of the Georgia issue is the same as Iraq: oil

Russia wants control of Georgia for strategic and materialist reasons more so than security or removing a threat, much the same as the US occupation of Iraq.

I'm not agreeing at all with Russia's actions here, it's just that I honestly do think the USA is being hypocritical in their condemnation of Russia. Last night while watching the news I heard Condi Rice saying that USA disapproves of the 'invasion of a country, occupation of a capital and overthrow of a government.' Sounds like hypocrisy to me.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 07:28 pm
@FatalMuse,
Oh, the Administration's response to the Russian invasion is entirely hypocritical.

But the circumstances are quite different. Sure, economics is at the heart of Russian motivation - economics is at the heart of almost all military conflicts. What worries me most of all is that Russia is trying to recapture territory once held by the empire. Is this step one? Will some other former Soviet Republic be next? Who knows.
 
FatalMuse
 
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 09:06 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
But the circumstances are quite different. Sure, economics is at the heart of Russian motivation - economics is at the heart of almost all military conflicts. What worries me most of all is that Russia is trying to recapture territory once held by the empire. Is this step one? Will some other former Soviet Republic be next? Who knows.


I completely agree that the circumstances are different, but the intentions and legitimacy of each situation has obvious parallels.

One thing to ponder: it wasn't that long ago that Iraq was part of the British Empire. USA is not Britain but they are allied and current Iraq still looks very much like the West trying to (re-)establish an empire in the Middle East.

I seem to be stirring up agruments all over the show lately by labelling the US condemnation of Russia as hypocritical. I'm not taking any sides, it just seems the rhetoric between Russia and the USA suggests that the cold war never really ended - it just shifted focus temporarily and is coming back into vision.
 
Holiday20310401
 
Reply Thu 14 Aug, 2008 09:56 pm
@FatalMuse,
Its too bad we couldn't set up a podium and date in which we told the world (so that the Nazis would hear) that any former Nazis who were involved in killing Jews to explain why they did it at the time.

Unfortunately I think most would be dead or in exile in a rural area where communication would be limited. And the ones who got caught tended to have heart attacks or suicide before they could be captured or punished.

But hearing the reasons for such insanity would be nice from the ones who did it. And it would be interesting in itself to see if they'd actually want to speak.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2008 01:51 am
@Holiday20310401,
Is it hypocritical? Is Saakashvili someone who has long been in hot water with the Russians and working under treaty stipulations which he has broken? Is he guilty of oppressing his own people? Has he dug mass graves for those whom he authorized the testing of biological agents on? Saakashvili is a democratically elected president, and has long been pushing to join NATO, much to Russia's disdain. We have come to a clash of ideology in this just as we have before, in form it is true that Russia has a vested interest in Georgia and is ideologically opposed to what the Georgians are doing, but we hold the converse view on the matter and our actions though in form were similar, are not in any sense hypocritical. We are still acting in accordance to our basic ideals in them. The iraqi's do now have a fairly stable democracy, and a better way of life by our ideological standard.

Where is the conclusive proof of this invasion being for the oil? All I have seen is rather slanted attacks and intentions which make little to no sense. We didn't need the iraqi oil fields, we could break the oil cartell in the middle east with our own resources. If we wanted, we could flood the market with oil simultaneously crushing Venezuela, Russia and Iran by crippling their economies while simultaneously breaking OPEC completely. The only problem is that big oil would have to shift to alternatives(a la T. boone Pickens, who is backed Pelosi who has purchased a substantial ammount of stock in his company following his unveiling of his plan for wind energy) to keep their money and it isn't really cost effective, but at the same time, were prices to drop moderately, ther would be substantial increase in consumption, possibly making up for the drop especially if all of the oil was domestic. It is probably possible to flood the markets within the next 5-10 years and totally undermine these problem countries while gaining energy independence without hurting big oil much.

Edit: Yes the handling is goofy and hypocritical in a sense, and there have been a number of times when those speaking out including condi and mccain have said things akin to 'invasion doesn't happen anymore its the 21st century'. This is silly,they should be taking a deeper ideological stance on this.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Fri 15 Aug, 2008 08:08 am
@Zetetic11235,
I wonder why whenever there are recent conflicts, its usually assumed its about oil.

Something to remember is that Russia (in both democratic and socialist forms) has been doing this for decades. Whenever a new premier or president takes power, there is a brief foray into a disputed territory or what not. The USSR in 1968, Putin did it with Chechnya when he took power, and low and behold Medvedev does this with Georgia right after he takes power.

But it is interesting that the original post references to German Blitzkrieg. I do not see it in the same way with the Russians and Georgia... partly becuase they are mainly using lightly armored APC's. But militarily, a fleet of Postal trucks could to the same thing... and more efficiently I might add.

But it is odd how this is happening in the grips of a very fervent bout of Russian nationalism. Any similarities to Nazi germany??? Probably.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 12:45 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Quote:
But it is odd how this is happening in the grips of a very fervent bout of Russian nationalism. Any similarities to Nazi germany??? Probably.


Exactly. Nazi Germany invaded the Sudetenland, justifying their actions by claiming the region was German. Similarly, the Russians defend their aggression by arguing that they are not being aggressive, but are instead defending Russians in Georgia.

Meanwhile, the international response to the Russian invasion is also similar to the response to the Nazi invasion. 'Don't do that, but we're not going to stop you'.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 04:18 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
I think Russia, though, does get the picture that they will not take the oil they are after nor will the get Georgia in the end. The best course of action now would be to bring all of the countries surrounding russia into NATO, starting with Ukraine, and totally sanction russia in every way possible, including removal from G8.

All Russia has to run on is its oil. The more we move to alternatives, the faster we could flood the oil market, we could destroy their monetary base. Especially if we can undersell them, though this probably will not be the case. If we can figure out how we might flood the market with domestic oil and maximize profit, ignore the negative impact on Saudi Arabia, or promote it as an anti OPEC measure outright, we could make this a reality. We would end up with a crippled Iran as well, perhaps we could instill a sense of unrest an find an opportunity to allow the crown prince to take up his power again. He has shown democratic intent.

This action would put the final nail in the coffin for Hugo Chavez as well, Venezuela is heavily dependent on its oil exports.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 04:33 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Quote:
I think Russia, though, does get the picture that they will not take the oil they are after nor will the get Georgia in the end.


Do they?

First, I do not think Russia is after Georgian oil. Instead, it seems that Russia is after the transportation of oil. Remember, the oil now flowing through Georgia once flowed through Russia to Russian ports.
All Russia has to do is destroy the Georgian pipe line; then, BP and others will have no choice but to reenlist the Russian pipeline.

I don't see what is preventing Russia from occupying Georgia indefinately. The US occupies two foreign nations at the moment. The US doesn't have troops to deploy, and I doubt that the rest of the western world would take any military action against Russia without definitive US involvement.
Bringing in various former Soviet Republics into NATO might be a good idea - but this will do little to help those nations. If anything, should we include them and Russia invade one of them, I think we would see NATO shrivel as a significant military alliance. Either that or World War Three.

Kicking Russia out of the G8 is unlikely. We have to remember just how powerful Russia has become. The days of an economically cripple Russia are long gone. Economics and military concerns considered, Russia is a super power.

Quote:
If we can figure out how we might flood the market with domestic oil and maximize profit


Which I doubt we can do. Perhaps as a coalition of, say, the US, Mexico and Canada, assuming these nations also make a strong move toward alternative, what you suggest might be possible.

Even if we manage to accomplish such a thing, we're talking about five years at the very least. More than likely, the economic reorganizations your talking about will take ten to twenty years. Even five years will be too distant to help Georgia.
 
VideCorSpoon
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 04:39 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 05:33 pm
@VideCorSpoon,
Dydimos, think you underestimate the U.S. millitary. Occupation is one thing, occupation is not necessary for russia. We won the 'war' in Iraq in the sense that we totally crippled its government and economy pretty damn quickly. A few bombings is all it took.

We have a carrier called the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan that is the 10th largest millitary in the world taken in and of itself. Russian air force is pathetic. We spend so much on military development it is absurd to think another nation might pose a military threat. It owuld take a number of months to launch attack on russia but the country could be crippled very quickly thereafter.

The problem lies in the nukes, we would be looking at einstein's conception of WW III if we actually invaded. We are gearing up for M.A.D. A new cold war. The oil plan is akin to an arms race style strategem.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 06:29 pm
@Zetetic11235,
Quote:
Dydimos, think you underestimate the U.S. millitary. Occupation is one thing, occupation is not necessary for russia.


No offense, but I doubt that. Look, if the US is going to use military action in defense of Georgia (not that we should, necessarily) the US needs combat forces that are not already deployed in combat.

At best, we could rearrange our fleet to pressure Russia. But Russia also boasts a respectable naval force. There is absolutely no way US ground forces could compete with Russian ground forces so long as the US has so many deployed in Iraq, and to a lesser extent, Afghanistan. Without a draft, the US is virtually impotent against such a major power.

Russia is not some backwater. We're talking about an economic and military powerhouse.

Quote:
We won the 'war' in Iraq in the sense that we totally crippled its government and economy pretty damn quickly. A few bombings is all it took.


So what? Russia could have done the exact same thing to Iraq.

Meanwhile, US forces are engaged in a prolonged occupation of two volatile, foreign nations.

Quote:
We have a carrier called the U.S.S. Ronald Reagan that is the 10th largest millitary in the world taken in and of itself. Russian air force is pathetic. We spend so much on military development it is absurd to think another nation might pose a military threat. It owuld take a number of months to launch attack on russia but the country could be crippled very quickly thereafter.


I hate to tell you, but there are two nations in the world capable of, on their own, posing a significant military threat to the US: China and Russia.

I do not know why you consider the Russian air force 'pathetic'. Again, this isn't 1991. We're looking at a big, bad Russia.

Quote:
The problem lies in the nukes, we would be looking at einstein's conception of WW III if we actually invaded. We are gearing up for M.A.D. A new cold war. The oil plan is akin to an arms race style strategem.


Ah, here you show some real perspective. Nukes are a real problem. This is why superpowers have been fighting one another through satellite countries.

The arms race/resource race comparison seems appropriate to me. But that's the history of the world in a nutshell. A battle for resources.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 09:28 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Oh, the Administration's response to the Russian invasion is entirely hypocritical.
Well, except insofar as every government on earth has a double standard when it comes to their own ratio of interests to indiscretions. The US looks out for its own interests; one of them happens to be a friendly government in the Caucasus that wants to be part of NATO.

The most interesting part of this whole story to me, and perhaps the most dangerous, is the sudden interest that Poland has in a missile defense system. THIS is what is going to really test how expansionist Putin wants to be.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 11:25 pm
@Aedes,
Quote:
Well, except insofar as every government on earth has a double standard when it comes to their own ratio of interests to indiscretions. The US looks out for its own interests; one of them happens to be a friendly government in the Caucasus that wants to be part of NATO.


Isn't this objection tantamount to 'every nation employs hypocritical foreign policy'?

Quote:
The most interesting part of this whole story to me, and perhaps the most dangerous, is the sudden interest that Poland has in a missile defense system. THIS is what is going to really test how expansionist Putin wants to be.


Interesting. And the real test might be Poland you say?
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sat 16 Aug, 2008 11:47 pm
@Didymos Thomas,
Didymos Thomas wrote:
Isn't this objection tantamount to 'every nation employs hypocritical foreign policy'?
Only If you believe that each nation on Earth should have a foreign policy that makes no distinction between its own interests and those of all other countries. Of course all nations have double standards, because they are fundamentally self-interested. The only hypocrisy is in denial of behavior motivated by self interst, not in the behavior itself.

Quote:
Interesting. And the real test might be Poland you say?
One Russian official already told Poland that they will make themselves a "target" If they accept a missile defense system from the US. Of course Putin has been using such rhetoric for years.
 
Zetetic11235
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 12:06 am
@Didymos Thomas,
Russia and china are not superpowers. The U.S. makes ten times as much money as either of them and they do not trust eachother enough to mount a proper joint offensive. On top of this, the U.S. is gaining EU favor in this. The EU combined with the U.S. are obscenely more powerful than their Russo-Chinese counter part. Our millitary budget is equivalent to half 50 PER CENT of russian GDP. We could increase it easily.

Were it not for the nuclear arms still held by Russia, we could soundly defeat them. Are you even aware of how much more advanced U.S. millitary technology is than russian or chinese weaponry? Have you seen the stuff we have? metal storm? Take a glance at these new/develop g weapons Weapons of the United States Military

Common D.T. do you have a very extensive knowledge of recent russian military history/development that is not readily availible or somthing? Russia's new seven year program for re-armament consits of a budget 2/3s of our yearly one, their defense budgest lingers at under one tenth of ours at a recently quadrupled 31 Billion. It is not going to be able to afford much more and it will loose strength as we shift to alternatives. Glance this over Russian Military Spending.

Top ten economies as of 07 Top Ten Economies of World, Top Ten Economies , Top Ten Economies of World yeah, china and russia fall below denmark. I'm real worried about their military might. What great superpowers. China can't even arm more than 10% of its 'military'.

The only danger Russia can pose presently is nuclear, and then we just get into M.A.D. until we perfect missile defence shielding. In the long run, I think russia will simply collapse as we drift away from oil and towards alternatives. Now even the conservative crowd has reason to jump on the environmental bandwagon, so I doubt it will be too long in coming. China may,may, become a superpower. India probably will first. So many coutries are currently up and coming, that as far as power distribution is concerned, China and Russia don't hold up a candle. Maybe China, certainly not Russia.

I might further add, that when it comes down to it, a nation, just as a person, will do anything to protect its ideology and way of life, even temporarily abandon some of its ideals. When it gets down and dirty, lofty ideals are thrown to the wind and Machiavelli is the order of the day.
 
Aedes
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 07:05 am
@Zetetic11235,
Zetetic11235 wrote:
Russia and china are not superpowers. The U.S. makes ten times as much money as either of them.
Not that it matters when a huge chunk of our national debt is owed to China and when we're so terrified of losing them as a market that we will NEVER stand up to them. Economically the US needs China a lot more than China needs the US, and that is a position of enormous vulnerability to us. Military activity is not the point, because it only comes at the end of a longer process of diplomacy and leverage, which we patently would lose versus China. We've hadn't the least bit of influence on China, despite great efforts, about such issues as political prisoners, Tibet, Taiwan, or copyright infringement, and our influence over the issue of North Korea has been to get the bare minimum out of them. They aren't intimidated by us, whatever money we happen to pour into nuclear submarines, because they KNOW we wouldn't risk war with them.

And incidentally, China being a nuclear power with ballistic missiles and the capability of raising a standing army that matches the total size of the US population, they are not some military trifle whatever toys we happen to buy from Lockheed et al.
 
Didymos Thomas
 
Reply Sun 17 Aug, 2008 01:35 pm
@Aedes,
I'm not arguing that the US is weaker than Russia or China, Zetetic. I'm only suggesting that they are military powerhouses, and can most certainly compete with the US military so long as the US military is preoccupied in the Middle East.

Sure, the US has a more powerful military. But what good is that more powerful military against Russia or China if that military is almost entirely dedicated to fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan? Almost nil.

Presenting military spending doesn't make your argument, either. We are talking about a hypothetical military conflict in the near future. Obviously Russia is capable of spending a great deal more on their military if necessary. Not to mention the fact that Russia can field a much larger military than the US.

As for our fancy toys, I'm familiar. And I'm not impressed. Nazi Germany had many fancy toys. The issue is whether or not they are in the field in a big way.

Quote:
Common D.T. do you have a very extensive knowledge of recent russian military history/development that is not readily availible or somthing?


Nope, everything I know is available to the public. History included. The US is not the Mongol Horde.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » General Discussion
  3. » Sudetenland 2.0
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 06/19/2024 at 08:32:46