Heavy fighting in South Ossetia.

[Notebook]

Not getting any quieter:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7548715.stm

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Not getting any quieter:-

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7548715.stm

Of course. Guess how close the tanks had been to the border, just in case somebody attacks the many million Russian Citizens over there, who just got their passports for free during the last peace talks.

 

[Notebook]

Hope the Russians haven't forgot recent history, last time they sent their tanks South they had quite an adventure.
Come to think of it, there was an Olympics happening then...

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Hope the Russians haven't forgot recent history, last time they sent their tanks South they had quite an adventure.
Come to think of it, there was an Olympics happening then...

N.

Today, more Afghans have Russian passports than then.

 

[Notebook]

Georgia has mobilised its reservists, just reported on TV news. I think they are playing a very dangerous game with Russia. Maybe they think they will get European support, or US?

N.

 

[adamb193]

Georgia has mobilised its reservists, just reported on TV news. I think they are playing a very dangerous game with Russia. Maybe they think they will get European support, or US?

N.

Yes let's go to war with Russia! Come on I'll get Red Dawn and prepare!!!

 

[Urwumpe]

Georgia has mobilised its reservists, just reported on TV news. I think they are playing a very dangerous game with Russia. Maybe they think they will get European support, or US?

N.

They play politically for US support in special and NATO support in general, but in this case, you can also interpret the unclear situation as defense.

You have to remember that Russia is not only north of Georgia, but also in the south, they still have a motorized brigade in the south west, stationed there as "peace keeping forces".

So, if the reports of Russian attacks on an air base in Georgia is true, Georgia could be also defending against a possible Russian invasion.

After all, why should Georgia (an authoritarian democracy just like Russia) fight a war, where it does not gain anything by winning it - Russia has more to gain.

 

[Notebook]

Could Georgia win a shooting war against Russia? Maybe a bloody stalemate. I wonder what motivated Georgia to escalate the situation just now?

N.

 

[Urwumpe]

Could Georgia win a shooting war against Russia? Maybe a bloody stalemate. I wonder what motivated Georgia to escalate the situation just now?

The question is: Who did escalate the situation?

There is no good information about this right now, but the official expert cause is: It is normal for the time of the year.

 

[Notebook]

Have they got the harvest in yet in the Caucasas?

N.

 

[ar81]

It makes me sad to see that leaders spend their time playing games of power instead of ruling their territory. It would be like having a company CEO that spends half of his day playing Age of Empires: A waste of taxpayers money.

 

[n122vu]

According to a video report (Look for "Border Battle" as the title) at www.foxnews.com , even though Ossetia is technically still part of Georgia, many of the separatists in Ossetia are considered Russian citizens. They report that Russia is claiming Georgia moved on the region in an effort to establish better control, and Russia retaliated in an effor to 'protect its people.' It's still unclear who is right or wrong in this situation.

Before I could even ask myself, "I wonder when we are going to send someone over to try and 'police' this situation," I read the headline that a U.S. envoy is already on the way.

Perfect. We can't even police our own nation, but our politicians (Rep. and Dems alike) think we're the glue that is keeping the rest of the world from falling apart.

Didn't a wise person once say, "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

 

[ar81]

If current leaders have the idea of forming an empire, you only need to see what happened during 20th century... empires broke apart.

British empire and French empire had colonies being independent, Japanese empire was broken, USSR was broken into several countries, US is now a divided nation (citizens have no unified political attachment).

Germans attempted twice to glue an empire and they ended up with a nation split in two for many years.

So if we see the signs of our era, every attempt to create an empire results into division of the country.

While the sun unites atoms, humans nukes and nuke reactors divide atoms... so it seems that gluing an empire with dividing techniques does not seem a good way to do political math.

 

[Ghostrider]

So if we see the signs of our era, every attempt to create an empire results into division of the country.

Yeah. Tell that to the Klingons. Or the Romans.

 

[Urwumpe]

Or the Macedonians.

Or the Chinese.

 

[GregBurch]

Perfect. We can't even police our own nation, but our politicians (Rep. and Dems alike) think we're the glue that is keeping the rest of the world from falling apart.

Didn't a wise person once say, "Pride goeth before destruction, and a haughty spirit before a fall."

I don't know what "We can't even police our own nation" means, but it isn't a matter of pride. It's a matter of two things. First, the United States has the largest military capability in the world and it is also the most effective military in history, by no close contest.This means we have a Big Stick. It doesn't mean we'd use it in this situation -- in fact, everyone knows there's no way we would. but it does mean we have a BIG stick.

Second, despite all the whining and moaning and criticism and nit-picking, most people in the world KNOW that the US by and large acts as a stabilizing force in the long run. Cynics may believe this is because we have self-interest in stability, and that's true, but it's not the whole truth. Behind that is the fact that, despite all the whining and the moaning and criticism and nit-picking, we have a huge native resource of social capital in the mass of our history and people. In other words, people know "we can take it" where almost no other society can.

 

[Deke]

The World's in great shape.

Ah... Good ol' Russia invading a town Georgia wants, threats, shooting, destruction.

Just another day at the office.

 

[Urwumpe]

... and it is also the most effective military in history, by no close contest.

*cough*cough*

I think many nations in the old world can claim to be far more effective. Even the French troops defeat US troops on a regular base in maneuvers, far more to claim that the US troops just allow the French to defeat them as act of sympathy.

And you won't get the throne in effectivity as long as you have a professional army and waste the capabilities for cold-war type "detailed-order tactics" (contrary to the mission-type tactics/mission command used even in European countries with draft)

The US have a large stick with their army. But other countries know how to do worse stuff with smaller sticks. The comparison with Russia might work, but most European countries already realized that they can teach their soldiers far better tricks when they have more time for training.

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct02/SepOct02/widder.pdf

If you would pit 50,000 US soldiers in Georgia against 250,000 Russian troops, I would have doubts the better equipment will be enough. After all, you are not only far away from home (though US troops have the luxury of not knowing how its like to fight at home), but also surrounded by enemies.

 

[GregBurch]

*cough*cough*

I think many nations in the old world can claim to be far more effective. Even the French troops defeat US troops on a regular base in maneuvers, far more to claim that the US troops just allow the French to defeat them as act of sympathy.

And you won't get the throne in effectivity as long as you have a professional army and waste the capabilities for cold-war type "detailed-order tactics" (contrary to the mission-type tactics/mission command used even in European countries with draft)

The US have a large stick with their army. But other countries know how to do worse stuff with smaller sticks. The comparison with Russia might work, but most European countries already realized that they can teach their soldiers far better tricks when they have more time for training.

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct02/SepOct02/widder.pdf

If you would pit 50,000 US soldiers in Georgia against 250,000 Russian troops, I would have doubts the better equipment will be enough. After all, you are not only far away from home (though US troops have the luxury of not knowing how its like to fight at home), but also surrounded by enemies.

Well, we could have a big, long fight about this. First, as to the French, well, cough, cough.... how exactly does a young man decide to become an officer in the French army, the losingest team in pro-sports ... it's been a while since Waterloo, you know.

As to the rest, well, you simply cannot assume I mean that the US armed forces are the best because of their equipment. In fact, that's not at all what I mean. I would say the current US armed forces are the best in history because of 1) the non-com officer corp, which is the backbone of any armed force, and which is the most professional such corp that has ever existed, the WWII Wehrmacht not excepted, 2) the all-volunteer enlisted force, which is where it is because it wants to be, and is the best trained FOR ITS SIZE of any any such force that has ever existed, and only 3) because of the middle ranks of the commissioned officer corp, which has proven itself to be EXTREMELY adaptable and creative over the last seven years of war.

The current US armed forces are not at all of the same nature they were ten years ago or even five years ago. The improvement in morale, training and effectiveness over the last five years is something that is nearly unprecedented, so far as my study of history can see.

 

[Eagle]

*cough*cough*

I think many nations in the old world can claim to be far more effective. Even the French troops defeat US troops on a regular base in maneuvers, far more to claim that the US troops just allow the French to defeat them as act of sympathy.

And you won't get the throne in effectivity as long as you have a professional army and waste the capabilities for cold-war type "detailed-order tactics" (contrary to the mission-type tactics/mission command used even in European countries with draft)

The US have a large stick with their army. But other countries know how to do worse stuff with smaller sticks. The comparison with Russia might work, but most European countries already realized that they can teach their soldiers far better tricks when they have more time for training.

http://usacac.leavenworth.army.mil/CAC/milreview/English/SepOct02/SepOct02/widder.pdf

If you would pit 50,000 US soldiers in Georgia against 250,000 Russian troops, I would have doubts the better equipment will be enough. After all, you are not only far away from home (though US troops have the luxury of not knowing how its like to fight at home), but also surrounded by enemies.

The key word is capable. The US tries to keep as many advantages as it can, but a specialized enemy in his own environment is very difficult. I don't doubt the training, determination, ingenuity or equipment of the armies of Western Europe. But the US far exceeds France, UK, and Germany in the ability to deploy large forces rapidly to remote theaters.

Western Europe is very fierce in their local theater and when already deployed and supplied by sea lanes.

The US also keeps the advantage of a Ginormous Navy(with ships of every type), and Huge wings of mid air refuelers, air transport, and long range bombers. (roughly translated, the US Navy is near every coast and the Air Force can enter any sky.)