The Gaming Den

I was Wondering.

Turns out that the war is about oil after all. I was seriously wondering why you could read US newspaper articles straight through and never come away with the key piece of information that Georgia attacked Russia and not the other way around; and why you could read Russian papers and get nothing but tirades about Georgian human rights abuses.

Right. The pipeline that Clinton built to bypass Russia runs through Georgia and right next to South Ossetia. That's why all reporting on both sides has taken sides.

-Username17

My girlfriend and I were trying to figure out why the only mention of Georgia as the aggressor in our paper was in a tiny letter to the editor. She noticed that Georgia's army was US-trained, and we wondered why...
Yeah, pipeline.

Oil? Really?

I'll look into it too. At first this skirmish had me scared like "Oh shit, the Cold War broke, here's World War 3" but I believe the U.S. really won't get their hands dirty in this one.
It's just like how they've managed to pretend to help Darfur for so long without actually making the military or political moves to stop the deaths.
There's no profit to be had.

It was hard getting accurate, and timely, information. For a while I was scared too!

I hear on the grape vine that much of the Georgian offensive was organised with help and prompting from Israeli military advisors.

Apparently its now somewhat of an open scandal in Israel since they are suddenly all shitting themselves because Russia actually decided it cared and they are afraid of what Russia might do in revenge. Like at the very least become even closer friends with Iran.

Certainly you look at some of those press briefings with the Russian guy ominously promising to "Punish those responsible" and it looks like not great news for them.

Edit: why do you seem to have linked to that other article?

Frank, it does seem your link points to the Mukasey scandal.

Yeah, so now everyone is paranoid that Russia will invade Poland (OMG, they did it before! ...Weren't there Nazis there last time?) or bomb them because of the missile defense site (aka US MISSILES) being installed there.

-Crissa

I'm given to understand that Georgia's bid for NATO entry may have also been a factor.

The day it all started, I told my GF:

"This bullshit is really all a response to the Polish missile defense system."

Meaning: Russia seized an opportunity granted to them by an ill-thought out Georgian operation in a contested region to attack a key US ally in the region in retaliation for the missile shield.

Hey, look what the US just signed!

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7563182.stm

Russia would've counter-attacked anyhow. They've done it any time there's been unrest on their borders. It's their answer to violence and rebellion. You might say it's cultural, it might be, but mostly it's just a simple answer to a difficult, complex question of self-determinism.

It's not like the US is any different. We just happen to have moved all the unrestful places far enough away that tanks can't literally drive there. Mexico for instance, exists in the state it does (totally in debt to US interests) because of our forces.

-Crissa

FrankTrollman wrote:I was Wondering.

Turns out that the war is about oil after all. I was seriously wondering why you could read US newspaper articles straight through and never come away with the key piece of information that Georgia attacked Russia and not the other way around; and why you could read Russian papers and get nothing but tirades about Georgian human rights abuses.

For the record, NPR has been constantly pointing out that Georgia started the problems by going into South Ocetia. They also did a piece that showed how all the analysts indicated that in spite of the ease of the operation using old style Soviet excessive force they actually showed the world how far they have to go to get into 21st century warfare.

The 1970's style tanks are death traps; a good mine will kill the occupants. But riding on top of the tanks expose men to sniper fire.

They lost several aircraft including a backfire bomber; proof that they simply do not have the technology for unmaned attack systems.

The Georgian human rights abuses are minimal at best. On the other hand they are burning to the ground all Georgian buildings in South Ocetia.

tzor wrote:
For the record, NPR has been constantly pointing out that Georgia started the problems by going into South Ocetia.

Of course, they have. It's NPR. they kick ass. I mean, I have no favoritism or anything towards them. (cough)

Because I'm lazy, my main source of news is the BBC - some say it has an anti-US bias, I can't help but feel that is has a minor pro-US/Israel bias, but it vaguely seems to be a more reliable source than most. What would people here recommend as far as news goes?

---

I was trying to figure out why Georgia would be so stupid as to provoke an attack by Russia - Russia has been on good terms with South Ossetia (whether due to oil or due to Russian citizens dating back to when SO broke away from Georgia soon after Georgia broke away from Russia, or even due to "We told NATO bad things would happen if they ruled in favour of the Albanians"). Russia has the Bond villain DOCTOR PUTIN, who is clearly willing to send death rays at everyone from his lunar base. Russia outright warned them there would be trouble.

...aaaaaand, they still decided to invade SO, with their pitiful excuse for an army. Seriously, how could they not know they'd be flattened by the Red Bear? It's almost like they expected more US/Israeli assistance, or thought "Russia will get seriously slapped down by the rest of the world if they do anything".

And then, when the first ceasefire was declared, Georgia decided to start trouble again. We're not dealing with fast learners here.

Incidentally, my ex wishes it to be known that the diplomat sent by Sweden will probably talk so much that both sides will get annoyed enough to sign anything just to make him shut up.

---

Anyway, for once I've actually been following the news on this. I can't help but feel that Russia is in the right here, Georgia is in the wrong (and stupid), and Team "America and Friends" are simply favouring Georgia because the US and Russia made a hobby out of pissing each other off, and always have to take opposite sides.

Maybe it's because what I read supposedly has an anti-US bias, maybe it's just because all the Americans voicing their opinions on news site forums seem to be completely brainless, maybe it's because part of me has bad judgement and feels that Bush couldn't possibly be right - after all, since when was he the person to ask about when it's okay to invade someone?

Well, one can make the argument that Russia overreacted. The problem is that the U.S. can't make that argument without being hypocritical. After all, if we can force regime change on a country halfway around the world because we think there *might* be a chance that they have dangerous weapons (or because we want to spread representative government to the Middle East at gunpoint), it's hard to argue that Russia's not entitled to do the same thing in response to an invasion of disputed territory on its border.

I can't remember exactly where I saw it, but one of the more obscure theories being floated around is that our illustrious government helped precipitate this crisis. Basically, since we were talking Georgia up as a key ally in the war on terror and working with them on an oil pipeline vital to our interests, the Georgians assumed that we would go to bat for them. Now, how the Georgians were stupid enough not to figure out that the U.S. military is already overextended and that even the Bush administration would need a *really* good reason to start poking around in Russia's backyard, I have no idea.

Koumei wrote:Because I'm lazy, my main source of news is the BBC - some say it has an anti-US bias, I can't help but feel that is has a minor pro-US/Israel bias, but it vaguely seems to be a more reliable source than most. What would people here recommend as far as news goes?

I am a US citizen, and I get my nonpolitical news almost exclusively from BBC news online because the mainstream US media is shit. That said, Olbermann is awesome, as well as PBS/NPR (US public media). If you haven't checked it out, check out Frontline. The documentary "Bush's War" is especially informative.

Koumei wrote:Anyway, for once I've actually been following the news on this. I can't help but feel that Russia is in the right here, Georgia is in the wrong (and stupid), and Team "America and Friends" are simply favouring Georgia because the US and Russia made a hobby out of pissing each other off, and always have to take opposite sides.

John McCain's top foreign policy advisor Randy Scheunemann is a paid lobbyist of Georgia, and his firm has received a total of $800,000 from them to advance their interests.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gRxZ78dh-4

tzor wrote:For the record, NPR has been constantly pointing out that Georgia started the problems by going into South Ocetia. They also did a piece that showed how all the analysts indicated that in spite of the ease of the operation using old style Soviet excessive force they actually showed the world how far they have to go to get into 21st century warfare.

And this is why I should listen to the radio.