russia/ georgia

Schneed, the bolded comment perfectly illustrates this cavalier attitude that I spoke of among many Americans when it comes to war. Attempting to diminish what the Russians could do to us if fighting ever broke out is typical of those who don't actually have to face the prospect of fighting in such a conflict.

Do you know what the casualty counts would be if we turned our armies against Russia or if they turned against us? Even if, as you imply, we would ultimately "win" in a showdown with Russia, how many of our 130,000 troops already over there would be lost if the fecal matter started hitting the rotary device? 30,000? 50,000? Those might figures might be drastically low.

Our troops are over-extended, over-worked, and most of them are long overdue for leave time. We've had to borrow from our forces in Afganistan to allow for the 'surge' in Iraq. Now, we're losing ground in Afganistan. Americans at home are weary of the Iraq war, and polls have consistently shown that the public no longer supports it. You're telling me that none of this matters, and that the threat of Russia is overestimated?

Our military has been bogged down in the middle east for five years now -- and the Russians know it. Don't be so quick to assume that they are "nowhere close" to being pissed off enough to start something. (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2008/08/26/international/i115324D10.DTL) Didn't you see what Medvedev just said recently? That they're not afraid of another Cold War? How about the U.S. naval ships carrying aid to Georgia that suddenly decided to turn around (http://wiredispatch.com/news/?id=315491)? You think they were concerned with Russia's possible intentions?

Napolean was arguably the greatest military leader who ever lived. He was defeated by the Russians. Nazi Germany's Wehrmacht was the absolute best fighting force ever assembled in the history of human civilization. In the final months that closed out World War II, historians have said that 75% of them were killed not by the United States -- but by the Russians. I wouldn't underestimate those people, Schneed.

One more thing, -- do you really want that man from Crawford, Texas leading us into a war with Russia? How about Barack Obama, with all of the experience he has in situations like this?

Sometimes it's better to play it smart, than it is to play it tough.

I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.

Man with all this talk I bet next week the draft will start and the training of troops will begin. Mother and daughters will hit the factories making planes and tanks. We will be scraping all of our extra metal to build our fleet of ships.

Ok, I'll bite. How do you think this would apply to the Civil War?

Yeah, this is a pretty wild tangent -- but down to the perceptual level, don't we as individuals have the right to disassociate with whomever we want? If I feel someone with whom I have a relationship isn't holding up their end of the bargain, I have the right to go elsewhere, do I not?

Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War), but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.

You are absolutely right. Isn't the Monroe doctrine still in effect? I'm sure Russia has a similar doctrine. Our actions in Georgia/Poland are acts of war. What bothers me, is that our government HAS to know this. So, I wonder, are they that confident (arrogant), or are they simply counting on Russia to remain idle?

Also, Georgia/Ossetia is incredibly similar to Russia/Chechnya. Nobody had a problem with Russia suppressing Chechens -- after all, they are terrorists, right? It's quite hypocritical of Russia to have a problem with Georgia and its actions towards Ossetia. It seems like they are just exploiting an opportunity at a land/power grab.

You have articulated my feelings almost perfectly with your posts. It would take quite some time for me to say it as well as you have.

If it isn't too confusing, I've also agreed with many of SGG's points. I guess the truth is somewhere in the middle.


Thanks for the compliment. I've read as much as I can on this subject, and I try to look at it from both angles, getting the viewpoints from people with opinions that differ from mine.

There's no easy answer here. Without a doubt, the Russians were lying in wait just looking for a reason to turn the Georgians over their knee and give them an old-fashioned ass whoopin'.

But it's also undeniable that Saakashvili knew that the United States would cry foul, and give the American taxpayer yet another crisis we can shell out our hard-earned money for.

That's why I favor a foreign policy of non-intervention. No more rescues of oppressed people from dictators who should be doing the overthrowing themselves. No more billions of dollars given out to nations that hate us. No more playing the role of policeman of the world. No more wandering into sh*tstorms we can't find our way out of. From now on, everybody's on their own.

We have our own problems to deal with.

I disagree. What exactly is Russia going to do, launch an invasion of the European Union intent on attacking our NATO forces? How?

Their air force is far inferior to ours, any bombing runs they attempt will easily be thwarted as our NATO air forces are capable of putting multiple fighters into the air with 60 seconds notice.

Any ground force they attempt to launch could be thinned through the air significantly. Our forces are capable of putting C130s in the air and pounding armor on the ground with relative ease. Our fighters would establish air superiority over such a conflict in a matter of minutes, and our gunships would pound away under their cover.

In your historical example, Napoleon foolishly attacked Russia in the winter. Nazi Germany was fighting a war on two fronts after overextending itself throughout Europe. These scenarios are quite different from a potential invading Russian force upon NATO bases.

What recourse does Russia have? From a conventional military standpoint, little. They would never take that route because they'd face certain defeat. They'd instead reignite a cold war, and aim nukes in our direction. We'd be much more threatened by that action than any conventional type of aggression.

As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.

Same should go for nation-states. I don't know what the ramifications would have been for the south in the War of Northern Aggression (some call it the Civil War), but sooner or later, the two sides would have come to some sort of agreement and we'd have been one happy nation again.

Wow, did you really just call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? I have so many issues with that one; the least serious of which is that the South fired the first shot.

Also, are you saying that, if I so please, I should be able to declare my independence from the United States because I am dissatisfied with my government?

Wow, did you really just call the Civil War the War of Northern Aggression? I have so many issues with that one; the least serious of which is that the South fired the first shot.

Also, are you saying that, if I so please, I should be able to declare my independence from the United States because I am dissatisfied with my government?

Absolutely. To both questions.

Not really into the game are you?

Absolutely. To both questions.

Do you honestly believe the Civil War was a mistake?

Also, there would be chaos if anyone could declare independence. Hawaii, those nuts in the Michigan militias, and a bunch of others would secede from the U.S. Pockets inside of states, cities, and neighborhoods would be independent countries. Needless to say, everything would be f'ed up.

Not really into the game are you?

Huh? I'm watching it, recording it, and commenting on it in the thread.

As to the historical notes, even the best among us make mistakes. Still, the fact remains, the Russians faced what at the time were two of the best trained, most invincible armies the world ever saw, and thwarted both of them.

As far as battlefield strategy goes, I'm not going to get into C-130s and airstrikes and whatnot. The most I can muster on that subject was what I learned playing Risk, Statego, and Axis & Allies when I was 14 years old.

None of that really matters. You may be right that the Russians wouldn't do anything. Perhaps they're just talking and acting tough. But that's not the point. The issue I'm trying to address is this mentality that violence is the first answer, or that we'll "win" or "beat" the enemy in a conflict with such a casual attitude as though we're watching a football game.

The only thing that matters is making sure something like that never happens. Because regardless of which side ultimately prevails, tens of thousands of Americans would be killed. And for what? American blood spilled over 4.6 million Georgians in a part of the world where we never should have been in the first place?

No thanks.

We never should have been in Europe, helping to set up NATO, during the Cold War when the USSR was publicly saying it's goal was world domination?

You're losing me. You've made some good points in this thread, but you're starting to run yourself out of the inning here.

Besides, even if you don't agree with the politics behind our presence in Georgia and other parts of Europe, you have to acknowledge the immense peace of mind a strategically placed missile defense system brings to us here at home.

We know that Iran has no problems dealing with terrorists. We also know they are working towards nuclear capabilities. Should our diplomacy/tough talk fail to persuade them to give up their pursuits, it's a rather smart contingency plan to be able to protect Europe, Israel, and the US mainland by having the ability to shoot any ICBM's out of the sky.

If it's not Iran, it could be North Korea. If it's not them, it could be someone else who has an axe to grind with us.

And please don't suggest we shouldn't be protecting Europe or Israel in the first place, because then you'd render yourself entirely irrelevant.

Man with all this talk I bet next week the draft will start and the training of troops will begin. Mother and daughters will hit the factories making planes and tanks. We will be scraping all of our extra metal to build our fleet of ships.

Now that you mention it, after watching the game tonight the Redskins might serve Washington more effectively being drafted into service of their country than playing like this?