It wasn't a rant. It was an answer. And obviously I'm not lacking anything because I've just given you sources. People need to stop expecting a term paper every time I post just because they don't like what they see. Instead of insinuating I'm making things up and then throwing insults at my direction they should just ask for sources from the beginning.

Or you could just provide them from the beginning instead of telling people to ask for them. That could help things.

As it is, those Obmessiah-isms are lame and not that funny. I barely got a laugh out of 'typical white person'. But then I realized that it was probably taken out of context, so whatever.

Why should I? I didn't ask for sources when someone said Bush was ruining our economy or when his Constitutional obligations were completely falsified. I shouldn't have to be held to standards that nobody else is held to. It's one thing to say that the burden of evidence is with me, but really now, you could always actually debate and discuss before getting out the pitchforks when you read something you don't like or think is right. THAT could help things.



Don't care whether it's funny to you. I didn't do it to get laughs, but to make a point using sarcasm. You got the wrong idea if you thought racist comments of his are supposed to be funny. And everything I've quoted from him has been in context, but then if I found live footage of him robbing a bank I'm sure plenty of people would say it's out of context and things aren't as they appear. That's just how some people are I guess.

Sorry about my comment on americans. I didn't intend it to sound hurtful, just more of a stupid joke, I didn't mean it to be offensive. It was somewhat biased on the image you sell to the world, it's obvisouly distorted and exaggerated, that's all. Again, sorry 'bout it.

its no problem. i know i didn't think twice about it. don't worry about it

International politics, anyone? Can we hear viewpoints on the South Ossetia crisis? I'm not sure about US press, but the UK tabloids' coverage of the whole thing has gone decidedly anti-Russian. I think that, in light of the fact that Georgia were the ones to invade the region, that not all the blame for this potential humanitarian disaster can be placed on Russia.

I'm not putting words in people's mouths but it seems that in the minds of the western public, a strong bias against the Russian government has been slowly built by the media, perhaps to some end reiterating the stereotype of Russian politicians as communist criminals with big, bushy moustaches. (No Putin/KGB remarks, please lol). Not to point the finger but I have a sneaking suspicion it may have something to do with Russian opposition to the planned US weapons silo in eastern Europe.

Not to digress to far but, I personally also disagree with the US' plans for the silo. That America would have military presence on European soil is a very scary thought. The images in my head would lead me to believe there may as well be US troops in those nations. The price at which that land has been bought is the price of Europe's dignity.

Phew... if you read all that then thanks, and do please tell me what you think, it's like getting blood from a rock talking to most people at home...

Does anyone know who started the fighting?

Vladimir Putin is badass. :D

Russia is completely at fault here. Georgia didn't invade Russia; it invaded its own damn land. Georgia is a sovereign republican nation and the Russians giving out a bunch of passports to fifth columnists to agitate Georgia is no excuse to start a war and invade a free country. Georgia ought to join NATO as soon as possible. Putin is nothing more than a former KGB thug. Any attempt to bully its former slave colonies of Georgia, Ukraine, Poland, or any of Eastern Europe ought to result in NATO reminding those Russians where their borders are. I have to believe that Putin has been planning this for some time. All those troops don't just invade in the style they did out of nowhere. I think this all has to do with that former Soviet not wanting to be boxed in by Western-style democracies. Oh well, Russia can either adapt to a freer world that's the result of their defeat in the Cold War, or they can keep this BS up with attacking its neighbors and see retaliation.

But with all the innocent people the Russians are targeting to kill and all their well-handled bombings of civilians, I do have to say that I'm a little glad this happened because it's shown just how pathetic Russia is. It's killing plenty of innocent people, sure, but their military has shown itself to be incompetent. Their ground troops might have been able to catch a few victories over the Georgians, but their Air Force has proved an utter failure in attacking the oil and gas pipelines it's tried to destroy. Their troops are not physically or mentally prepared for war and it has shown. I shouldn't be surprised I guess. These are the same tyrants that got their backsides handed to them by a bunch of Afghan rebels resisting their conquest of their country. This isn't going to be as bloody as the Soviet-Afghan War, but it's not going to go as smoothly as their actions in Poland or Hungary. Unlike with Hungary, we're going to stand by Georgia and stand up to the Russian bear this time. Nice to know our president is standing up to "Pootie-Poot" rather than just looking in his eyes. Heheh, I hope the Russians have fun abusing Georgia, because they're not going to dare to attack American troops and ships heading over there to give aid to Georgia. They don't have the stomach or balls to do so. In fact, Russia's pulling out after failing to get anything done.

As for the missile defense systems we're putting into Eastern Europe, that's between us and our allies. Russia isn't going to dictate American policy towards threats that need to be contained. If Russia doesn't want our defense systems in the countries it formally enslaved and has continually tried to undermine since the USSR's collapse, maybe that's a sign that they know who's in charge and they should learn to live with it. I'm tired of treating Russia like our buddy. Same goes for Red China. Russia hasn't changed since the end of the Cold War. The Communists just call themselves "Social Democrats" and anything guys like Yeltsin tried to do was reversed when Putin stepped into power. They've been undermining American allies and empowering American enemies, and attacked allies and are helping enemies to attack other allies. From Kosovo to Israel and Serbia to Iran. Our defense systems will benefit Eastern Europe and help the former slaves to the Soviet Empire remain sovereign and also stop attacks from Islamist states like Iran. And why this fear of the US military being in Europe? I hate to break it to you, but American troops have been in Europe since we liberated it in WWII and remained there through the Cold War and still remain there. Same goes with Asia in Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines. In fact, us staying in your continent is the reason old Uncle Joe Stalin didn't send his tanks rolling into Paris after taking Berlin. The American presence in Europe kept it free of the Soviets for half a century, and when the Soviets were getting nervous about Reagan's missile defense program back then, they almost launched a full invasion of Western Europe potentially with nukes, but the West found out and our presence kept those commie fruit loops at bay. Europe has been in three world wars or conflicts, in fact they were all started in Europe, and America ended all of them. We turned the tide in WWI, we brought an end to WWII, and we won the Cold War. Each time Europe was saved from either perpetual war or enslavement under a totalitarian regime. I think America ought to be welcomed in Europe, at least considering the alternative of Russia. And lastly, if Russia thinks it'll intimidate the West with this game of chicken where it thinks it'll attack our friends to prove a point, then I say give Israel the green light to attack Russia's buddies inIran and let them know we're not going to deal with Russia's nonsense. Turn up the heat.

Actually, one more thing. Today is actually the 47th anniversary of the creation of the Berlin Wall, the monument that divided the City of Berlin between East and West, Communist and Free. I think it's good to remember these things. It's easy to forget what happens when we ignore the plight of our allies overseas that are under attack by aggressive foes. Russia ought not be ignored or appeased, but confronted and forced to stand down. Arm the Georgians and Eastern Europeans, supply them, train their forces as we've been doing, continue the missile defense programs, and for God's sake get those countries into NATO and force Russia to back off. If I had my way Truman would have let MacArthur bomb those Communists back into the Stone Age during the war in Korea. At least Eisenhower had the balls to threaten those ChiComs with a couple bombs if they kept up their fighting. But this is now, so get our allies ready to defend themselves and to hit the Russians where it hurts.

color me impressed cobalt. that is a very amazing



i onehundred percent agree

Cobalt, you will cease flaming people for their views. This thread is really not going to work if you insist upon jumping down others' throats. Same goes for everyone else involved in that scuff. Controversial topics are not going to be allowed if all they cause is bitter arguments and nasty posts that can offend others.

Crobat brought the topic of the war up and then left it open for others. I didn't insult him or anyone. What did I say that was so wrong? I thoroughly explained my position on Russia and the war and the only one I could think of that I might have "flamed" was Putin for starting the war.

Talking down to users, like you were to Jigglypuff and poplers, constitutes flaming. Your posts are laced with nastiness and it pisses me off when I read them. There is NO need to act like that.






And before you try to defend yourself, don't. You're breaking the rules whether you agree you are or not, so stop being subtle with your insults and play nice.

Fine then. Understood.

I appreciate that everyone has their own view on such a controversial topic, and as with any developing political situation there are bound to be strong views in either direction. With regards to anything said, I take no offence and think Cobalt is, to an extent, justified in his views.

I disagree (as you'd probably guess from what is written previously).



I find this statement quite alarming. Europe is not a state to be conquered, and in fact has a population greater than that of the US (500million to the US' 300). We generate 30% of global GDP and (discounting Russia) make up half of the G8. To talk about our land in a way likened to a playground to be controlled by the schoolyard bullies that are Russia and the US is derogatory. Yes, there are US troops in the EU, but as our allies, not masters. We are autonomous, and wish to stay that way. This is why, understandably, an EU citizen might not want further US militarisation of the developed world in our jurisdiction. Imagine the situation reversed, with French, German and British troops in some parts of the US, then agreeing with border states such as Mexico or Cuba to place long-range weapons near your territory. There would most certainly be uproar. I find, admirably, that Americans are bold people who have strong opinions, and I would not expect them to stand by silently as such a thing happened.

WWII was most certainly a victory because of US intervention, and it would have been a great deal bloodier for us if it hadn't been for them. But drawing from the COMBINED successes of the united fronts in those wars, to call America THE victor of all conflicts past and present is arrogant and ignorant of allied contribution. Without the other allies, the US would've been crushed by the axis, how can one nation, no matter how large, expect to be able to stand alone against an army of many nations (reminding you at this point that China and the USSR were also our allies in that war, and lost the most civilians in the fighting out of any party involved, including the Reich).

Your closing statement above is a credit to the "well, they started it first" excuse for war. Waging indirect war on the Middle-East through Israel is no better than Iran's support for Hezbollah. Yes, I likened US support to warring nations to that of organised terrorism. Our former Prime Minister, who destroyed his reputation among his people to help the US-led war on Iraq is out there right now, trying to keep the peace, but his words are useless if the developed world fuels the petty in-fighting.

Most of that sounded pretty wishy-washy "oh, let's all get along" rubbish, but it's my honest opinion. And if we can't all sit down and appreciate the points of other nations, then lets get back to bombing the hell out of each other and get it over with. I'm sure that what's left of our proud, proud, proud countries after loosing so many civilians and troops in endless war will stand tall. After all, how can we loose if we keep invading other countries, leaving our occupying forces there and then making ourselves even more unpopular among hoards of more countries? Oh, no, wait, that won't work will it.

On the lighter side though, the Zimbabwe situation could soon see resolution, perhaps? I think that Mugabe agreeing to hold power-sharing talks is at least one step further to ending the violence, and getting aid to the people in there. Big hand for Tsvangirai and Mbeki.

Edit: Ok, just re-read the last few posts and realised I've started something a bit too controversial. Sorry. Just wanted to know how people felt about the decisions of these governments. It's all gone a bit downhill, even I've got all defensive ^^^. Requesting a lock if nothing else of decency can be added.

Uh, I don't think this thread needs to be locked because someone got scolded, this thread doesn't produce any stupid comments or remarks, and I don't think the mods are trying to 'milk it for lulz' by keeping it open, plus, it'd reduce the amount of threads in here to this main one, which is better.

I'm not going to reply to your actual post except for the green part, but that's it.

Obama should be president. Yes?

I don't see what your continent's population or GDP has to do with being conquered. Britain's the only country with a military good enough to defend itself and the only one to fight a real war lately, like in the Falklands. The French and Germans can barely handle a few peacekeeping missions without losing their nerve. Are you going to rely on Denmark and Sweden to defend your pseudo-country of the EU when the Russian tanks come rolling or Muslim surrogates wage Jihad from within? A few bombings in Madrid was enough to scare Spain out of Iraq. I don't think you understand what I meant when I said what I said. I said that our choice to put military defenses like missiles in Europe was between us and our allies, and Russia ought to mind its own business. I didn't say anything about masters or bullying or taking sovereignty. I'm all for sovereignty, which is why I'm disgusting by something like a European Union-style creation. It's why I said that the defense programs were between us and OUR ALLIES. Why do you think the Polish just accepted America's missile defense systems? Because America told them to? We've been in talks for 18 months, and after Russia's brutality they've been reminded of the threat of the Russian bear. Why did Poland send troops to Iraq? Because they remembered what America did for them. There's an alliance between friendly states that's not being forced but agreed upon. Why does America have thousands of troops and a plethora of military bases all throughout Europe? Because from WWII onward Europe understood the need for America's might for containing the Soviets from rolling their tanks forward. NATO, bases, troops, and so on, these were agreed upon and not forced. America held off the Iron Curtain, America protected Western Europe and West Germany and West Berlin, and America carried out the Berlin Airdlift. America has been needed for Europe's defense largely because Europe can't defend itself. Is France going to fight the Russians like they fought the Indochinese peasants they lost the First Indochinese War to? If so, you need America. Countries like Portugal can't keep Europe safe. Europeans have known about this since WWII after their countries were so easily overrun by the forces of Fascism and Communism.

If you think we should pull out of Western Europe where Europeans have lived so long without war that they've forgotten what it is to live under totalitarianism, that's one thing. But to say the Eastern Europeans like the Polish or the Georgians don't want America's help is another, because the West was freed before WWII even ended, and the East remained enslaved until the 90's and those people still remember what it is to live under tyranny and don't want that again. I'll say it again, NATO, troop levels, military bases, and missile defense programs are all agreed upon by those countries we deal with. They can ask us to leave any time. In fact I wouldn't mind pulling our troops out of Western Europe and letting them choose between having a bunch of nanny-state governments and countries that can fight for themselves. I'd rather move our troops out of the West and move them to places worth defending with American blood like the East. That would really scare the Russians and keep them quiet. But again, there's no bullying, just agreements.



I never said it wasn't a combined effort. But that war was won because of America. I'm tired of people giving credit to the Soviets. The Soviets would have lost if not for America. American armed, supplied, funded, and even feed them. Stalin credited American Spam for keeping his troops from starving to death. The Soviets sucked in that war. America kept them afloat, and even that almost wasn't good enough. Stalingrad was nothing because the Nazis almost conquered Moscow and Stalin was getting ready to surrender to Hitler. Stalin only held in because his generals said to. And we get to the fact that the Russians had the highest casualties, like that's supposed to be a sign of victory. The Soviets had so many dead because Russians could only do two things on the battlefield- suck and die. The Nazis were slaughtering the Soviets in the war because the Germans were just better fighters. They destroyed Stalingrad and only lost because the Soviets had the weather on their side, had more bodies to throw into the war than the Germans, and the Americans tricked the Germans into wasting resources on the East and Africa allowing the invasion of Normandy to overpower the Nazis in the West. The idea that the Russians won the war is ludicrous. They had to kill their own troops to keep them from going AWOL during the fight with Germany. Their troops were horrible, their planning was horrible, and their leadership was horrible. America's intervention kept Russia from falling to Hitler who almost succeeded in taking the Reds. All the Russians managed to do was take advantage of their numbers and mow down second-rate powers like Finland and push Westward where they'd do what they did best in raping and killing innocent people in Berlin and conquering Eastern Europe making them slave states throughout the Cold War.

China was similar. Now keep in mind that it was a different China. It was Nationalist China under Chiang Kai-shek, not Red China under that tyrant Mao. And Chiang could barely fight the Japs because he was busy fighting a civil war at the same time. Chiang was fighting Communists and warlords throughout the country as well as the Imperial Japanese. China, like Russia, would have lost if not for America. America was keeping the Republic of China (not the People's Republic of China) afloat by training its forces and helping them fight the Japanese before we even entered the war. We had guys like the Flying Tigers in China fighting and working there before Pearl Harbor even happened. China was reliant on the US to get it supplies because the Japs were occupying the East. Even after WWII the Chinese needed help from America to fight the Communists as the Chinese Civil War waged on. In fact, the lack of American support eventually lead to Mao Zedong's victory over Chiang and the Communist domination of mainland China (People's Republic of China) and the Nationalists retreating to Taiwan (Republic of China). China was a mess, ally or not, and they were getting smacked around by Japan. America was the one to defeat the Japanese, by the way. We took Iwo Jima and dropped the bombs while Stalin watched from afar doing little to help. The Australians were there in the Pacific and a few others were too, but it was the US that won the Pacific War and destroyed the Japanese in Asia. We crushed them in Burma and Southeast Asia, the Philippines, China, and liberated the Southern portion of Korea. Now, am I forgetting that Australia and others helped and contributed? Not at all, but America was, as Yamamoto said, the sleeping giant that awoke and ended the war.

In Europe, Britain was being crushed. America helped through the Lend-Lease program to arm and supply them without having to fight for them. Even then the Battle of Britain was a continual struggle. The Germans were bombing them daily. And as brave as the British Empire was in taking a stand against Hitler when no one else would, how long would they have lasted? What happened to France and most of Europe? France surrendered to Germany after starting the war with them. Germany put a puppet regime in place by the name of Vichy France. Many other countries fell without putting up a fight. And the other countries that didn't get overrun by Germany like Italy and Spain were run by Fascists like Mussolini and Francisco Franco that were allies of Hitler in the first place. So was it the Free French resistance that should be given the credit for winning the war?

America entering the war not only turned the tide on every front, even the Desert War in North Africa where the Brits were fighting largely, but it also confirmed the death of the Axis because after Pearl Harbor and America's entrance into the war countries like Mexico and all the others that were too afraid to get their hands dirty finally declared war because they could safely bet on the Allies winning at that point. I don't ignore the British and French being the first to the fight, or the commie Russians taking heavy casualties, or the Greeks kicking Italy's metaphorical behind. I do though look at the war and see the French being conquered easily, the British hanging on by the skin of their teeth. I see that the Russians who were one of the Allies were originally pretty comfy with Hitler and had no problem with the Nazis when they invaded Poland together to retake their old lands pre-WWI, and I see that the Russians fought for conquest unlike America and the other Allies, and only survived that war by the skin of their teeth like Britain and didn't do squat fighting Japan. So America liberated Europe from Fascists and then held off the Communists, helped the Brits push the Axis out of Africa, and won the war in the Pacific and ended it by dropping the bomb, not to mention armed, feed, supplied, funded, and defended most of the other Allies and then subsequently turned the countries it freed into democracies and has kept them safe since then. I don't ignore the contributions of others, but come on, America did win that war through blood and treasure.



Well yes, it is better than Iran's support for Hezbolloah unless you're a moral relativist and don't take sides in the struggle of freedom against Islamism. Israel bombing Iran to stop its path towards nuclear armament and to contain Russian influence is nothing like trying to overthrow the democratic governments of Lebanon, Israel, and Iraq like Iran, Syria, and their surrogates have been doing. You PM, with all his backwards socialism, was right about the war and strong on defense. I know Europeans lost their nerve after WWII, but every now and then people like Thatcher come around to lead countries in positions of strength and not weakness. Harry Truman in America lost his reputation for sending our boys into Korea and had a lower approval rating than Bush ever had. But for all his mistakes and liberal policies, Harry Truman was a real leader and a statesman. Unlike FDR who cosied up with Stalin, Truman took a hard lined anti-communist stance and when Communists crossed the 38th parallel, Truman went into Korea and he pushed those commies SOBs back and kept South Korea free. Should he have let MacArthur bomb China and the Soviets with nukes like the General wanted? Yes. Should the US have pushed the Red Army back behind its own borders like Patton originally said? Yes, but Truman made a bold move and South Korea is free today because Truman reacted to tyrants. I don't look for excuses to go war; I find reasons. I'm not a warmonger, there's just so many reasons in the world to do what we do. Saddam broke the agreements to peace after the Gulf War and we had every right to go in there and take him out. In fact we should have gotten rid of him after the Gulf War when we had the chance, but Bush's dad didn't have the guts to go into Baghdad. Clinton should have went and killed Bin Laden when he had the chance, but there was a reason for Bush going after him. 9/11 wasn't an excuse for war, but a reason. Russia's and Iran's actions aren't excuses for war, but reasons for retaliation.



Well, my honest opinion is just different. It's fun getting along with Britain. It's fun getting along with Germany. But getting along stops at the borders of nations like Russia that have no finer points. Again, I don't like war. I wish there wasn't any. But there are two major theories I believe in when it comes to world politics- the Domino Theory, and the Democratic Peace Theory. The first says the governments like in Russia and Iran are dangerous and when given the chance they'll export their influence into other countries and soon more and more fill fall. We've seen this with Fascism in WWII and Communism after the Russian Civil War and in the Cold War, as well as Islamism after the Iranian Revolution. The second theory states that countries are less likely to go to war if they're free and democratic. We see this in post-war Europe and North America. Germany isn't attacking France now that it's a free country and they share common interests in capitalism (kind of), peace, and liberty. You can't really expect Israel to just get along with Palestinians when their people are getting killed by rockets all the time. You can't expect Taiwan to get along with Red China when they threaten them and their sovereignty. You can't expect North and South Korea to get along when one advocates freedom and the worth of the individual and the other is a horrible Communist hellhole that advocates socialist tyranny. You can't expect Eastern Europe and Russia to just get along when Russia just recently lost its empire and control of those nations and still does things like start wars for their oil and gas and land and starts cyberwars to undermine their sovereignty. It'd be one thing if it was just a border dispute between democracies like Canada and America, but it's not. Russia is run by an ex-hitman that ruined Russia's chance of staying democratic and having peace.

Another point... America has been in a constant state of war since the Revolution. There's never been a time that we've never been at war. The Revolutionary War, the Quasi-War, the First and Second Barbary Wars with the War of 1812 in between them, the Mexican-American War, the Civil War, and Spanish-American War, the First World War, the Second World War, the Cold War and all of its conflicts from Korea to Panama, the Gulf War, peace keeping missions like the Somali Civil War and the Yugoslav Wars in Bosnia and Kosovo, and now the Global War on Terror in Afghanistan, Iraq, the Philippines, the Horn of Africa and Somalia. Not to mention all the Indian Wars we've been in or the military expeditions like in Korea or against Poncho Villa, or the Banana Wars in the Americas, or things like insurgencies like the Boxer Rebellion or Philippine Insurrection. America's always been at war and we haven't blown up. We've pushed forward and crushed our enemies. We did this not because we wanted to see civilians die, but because we wanted them to have better lives. I believe in the Democratic Peace theory, and thus I think we'll have less war and less violence when we have less countries like Russia bullying its former slaves and trying to get rid of their territorial integrity. I think we should stand up to tyrants regardless of how well-armed they are. Evil is powerless if the good are unafraid.

I wish it was as easy as sitting at a table with enemies and talking about sports and culture and contributions to history and the like and getting peace. But history has shown that all that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. We did talk with Hitler many times and all we got was war. Neville Chamberlain appeased Adolf Hitler. Hitler took Austria, took Sudetenland, and all that he had to face was the Munich Agreement which took the choice out of the hands of those people and had guys like Chamberlain hand over their sovereignty without a fight. It took the invasion of Poland by Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia in a secret pact to get Britain and France to declare war, and by then it was took late- Britain was crippled and lost its empire, economy, and ability to fight back and France was conquered and replaced with the Vichy puppet government. It wasn't just the Germans either. Italy invaded Ethiopia and started wars to recreate the Roman Empire, and Japan left the League of Nations like Italy and Germany but to start wars of conquest in Korea and China and all the world did was try to sanction them and give a few angry words. The entire Second World War started because the world failed to respond to the actions of tyrants.

We talked with the Communists in the Cold War too. In the end we signed treaties, arms restrictions, and economic agreements, and it screwed the West and helped the East. We were giving them computers, grain and food, and even economic aid. As much as I love Nixon his policy of Detente had some consequences. He broke the Communist alliance but the Cold War continued with the Soviets leaching off of us until Reagan crushed them. And guys like Jimmy Carter were just like Chamberlain. Under Carter the Soviets promised peace and delivered an iron fist instead- Cuba, Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, the Horn of Africa, Poland, and of course Afghanistan. That was just under Carter. Before him the Communists were slaughtering in Russia and Eastern Europe, then China, then Korea, then Indochina in Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia and many other places, though we actually responded to many them under previous leaders unlike under Carter. At the end of the day, Communists killed more than 100 million people and still do it in Cuba, China, North Korea, Vietnam, and Laos. Kennedy talked with Kruschev and all that got him was a permanent Communist regime in Cuba. Nixon talked with North Vietnam to end the war and bring peace like in Korea, and after they agreed to the Paris Peace Accords and the war ended, American troops left with honor and the Communists broke their word and invaded the South.

Jimmy Carter didn't retaliate after the Islamists overthrew the Shah of Iran. He didn't stop the Iranian Revolution and let our ally fall. The people were subjugated and our embassy was invaded with hostages taken for hundreds of days, and after the failed Operation Eagle Claw Carter did nothing. Iran would then grow into the threat it is today, where it's influenced many terrorists and radicals and terror groups that are waging war against America and freely elected and democratic governments today because we failed to stop them at the beginning. And now we have Russia sitting down with the EU for peace talks, and I'm willing to bet it'll be a complete rerun of the Munich Agreement and Sarkozy is sadly playing out to be another Chamberlain. Russia still controls 1/3 of Georgia and any peace in the region should be gained from a position of strength and not a position of weakness.

I want peace, that's why I don't want to appease tyrants like Putin. If history's shown us anything, it's that appeasement only prolongs struggles, empowers evil, and makes peace impossible.

Also, if any of my opinions expressed in this post offended you, let me know so I can clarify. I don't want to get blamed for flaming again.

lol getting into a nuclear war with Russia over Georgia, we are not the world police.

Only six more months until the oil man is gone forever. o/

Just like "lol getting into a world war with Germany over Poland" right? Who said anything about nuclear war anyway?

And no, we aren't the world police. World Police would be a proper title for the UN if they managed to do anything important after the Kosovo War. But that has nothing to do with defending our interests and our allies. We've been playing the same role we played since the Quasi-War.

And I'm glad we have the oil man in Washington to oppose the oil man in Moscow.

I actually find your points about some wars being necessary for peace very agreeable. It is almost as bad to sit by and do nothing than to help a common enemy. I guess I'm just reluctant to call Russia an enemy, but in light of their reluctance to co-operate with the new ceasefire in Georgia does make me wonder about their willingness for peace on the grander scale.
This will probably evoke some hard feelings, but I don't have any great resentment for communism. I think it's a great concept in moderation, but along with it comes ultimate power for the government, and with that comes corruption. If only we were a more perfect race?
As for WWII I'm obviously not as great-a expert on the topic and I concede. Personally, I doubt I'd be speaking German right now (not counting my school years) if the US hadn't helped us in the war, but it's a horrible possibility I wouldn't like to find out.
I still stand by my point about intervention in the Middle-East, and think that brokering peace is the best option. I personally stand by Blair's watered-down socialism, but of course that's personal choice, and has many down-sides. The rogue nations there are obviously funding terrorism, but I don't think that direct political action is the right arena for dealing with it. Perhaps such matters are a matter for military, but only with a light/covert touch. And I suppose that does make me a moral realivist, I wouldn't mind living in a world where Islam and the secular West can co-exist (if it will ever be possible, I don't know. Probably not). I don't know, what do you think? If Tehran assembled a united front with other Islamist states and said to NATO or the UN etc, "Let's just live and let live. No more funding terrorism, no more warring, no more political games.", and genuinely meant it, would you feel comfortable doing it? I'm a bit of a pragmatist and would say yes, but doesn't make it right...

I hear you. I've never liked Putin but still wanted Russia to continue the policy of liberalization that existed when the Cold War ended. I wanted Russia to become like Germany and Japan, former enemies that would bloom and blossom into a true democracy. I had hoped that once Putin left things would get better, but now he just switched titles and is still in power and the protests are still crushed, the media is still censored, and the country is still aggressive towards its neighbors not to mention violent towards them and has undermined their governments and sovereignty. I don't think I can hold onto my hope that Russia will be our buddy anytime soon. Not unless Putin and his puppet remain in charge and their society is still controlled by the government. I'm not advocating cutting off relations with Russia or anything, but we really need to rething our relationship with them. I really don't think Putin has any wish for peace. He wouldn't have planted surrogates in Georgian territory for a reason to invade. He wouldn't be controlling a third of Georgia if peace was his goal. It would have been one thing to block off the disputed area from Georgia, but he in a fit of brilliance decided to cut Georgia in half and bomb its cities and (from what I've heard) nearly kill the president of Georgia. Putin is KGB and I don't think he'll ever change. It's like if the next leader of Germany was a member of the SS. I just don't think Russia should be appeased just because they made some progress since the Cold War; any changes they've made seem to be reversing.



Well, not to evoke hard feeling, but with that thinking Fascism is a good idea in concept. Mankind can't be blamed for not wanting to be forced into life of submission. Part of being free is the ability to own property. Marx was wrong- property isn't theft, socialism is theft. Socialist ides like Fascism and Communism are wrong because they put society and the state above the individual. It's not just the fact that it's totalitarianism. It's more than just government control. It's ideological. They don't preach the worth of the individual but the needs to the state. The society needs the land, not the farmer. The government needs the money, not the people. The people need to work for the society, not the other way around. They preach collectivization and loyalty. That's why people are wrong when they say Communism and Fascism don't work in real life. They do work. Cuba is an example of what happens in socialism. Laos is an example of what happens under a true socialist state. North Korea is an example of socialism. It's why Communist countries like Vietnam and China have started reforming economic policy to adopt certain parts of capitalism. Vietnam and China are recovering because they're moving away from agrarian socialism and towards industrial socialism. Either way the economy is still regulated and controlled by the governments. At the end of the day, totalitarianism does work because we've seen it work. And it's because we've seen HOW these systems work that we must oppose the creation of more of them. We wouldn't be a better race if we acted like ants serving a society where individual worth and the ability to live as one sees fit isn't a virtue; that would make us less perfect because it would mean we'd have thrown away the very things that make democratic societies great. The farmer chooses to farm in a democratic republic. The individual can work for who he wants in a free society. Money isn't evil, but a way for hard working people to get ahead in a free country. You see, Fascism and Communism and socialism in general try to force people into being generous with their time, hard work, money, bodies, and their lives. Democratic Capitalism is what Communism tries and pretends to be- a system where people give for others and live better. Where do you see less poverty, free capitalist countries or North Korea, Cuba, and Laos? Where is there more pollution, free capitalist nations (including America) or Red China? Where do people live better lives, have better jobs, and do what they want, Japan, Taiwan, and South Korea, or Vietnam, China, and North Korea? Even as a concept or an ideology, Communism, Fascism, Pan-Arabism, and socialism in general are ideas that put the society and its needs above individual man and his needs. And Communism is even worse than Fascism because it's not national socialism but international socialism where people aren't loyal to states, but to a one world entity. I think it's evil to the core.



Well you're right about one thing- you might not be speaking German. Germany was Fascist and thus wanted national socialism and not international socialism and might not have moved Westward to Britain to conquer it if the Allies hadn't declared war on Germany. He likely would have just went Eastward to Stalin and if he lost to the Soviets then you'd just be speaking Russian. <=P



I am an ardent supporter of making old enemies into allies and avoiding war, but that being said I don't advocate making current enemies into allies just to avoid war. America has always extended an olive branch to the world from the time of the Revolution. However, this is usually met with gun barrels, terrorism, and war. If there's to be peace with Iran and any terrorist state, then those nations must do nothing less than dismantle their arsenals, stop the funding of terrorism, sever any ties to terror groups, stop supporting Islamism, stop advocating the destruction of my country and Western civilization, stop trying to dismantle the free governments in Lebanon, Israel, Iraq, and Afghanistan, stop threatening our allies in Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE, and lastly follow a policy of liberalization (not necessarily democratization, but liberalization). Look at Libya and North Korea. We invaded Iraq and Libya was so afraid that we'd invade them next that they disarmed right after we went in and we took them off the list of terrorist states. North Korea apparently got rid of their nuke program and we took them off the list. We're not unreasonable. At the end of the Cold War Reagan and Bush reached out to Gorbachev and the Soviets because the tensions were going away and our enemies were liberalizing and reforming. My only problem is that Russia and Iran aren't doing these things now. Russia is returning to Soviet style intimidation and Iran is trying to get nukes. Putin thinks he's Stalin and President Yabbadabbadoo of Iran thinks he's a Sultan Mehmed II. They're men that we shouldn't appease, but confront.

Isn't the UN pretty much controlled by the USA? Not obviously, I mean.

Not really. We just give the most funding to the UN. Other than that we're just one of the leading members. We're not like a senator trying to run the whole Congress; we're more like a senator that funds most of the Congress but doesn't get much say.

random bushisms
"I remember meeting a mother of a child who was abducted by the North Koreans right here in the Oval Office."—Washington, D.C., June 26, 2008
"I think it was in the Rose Garden where I issued this brilliant statement: If I had a magic wand —but the president doesn't have a magic wand. You just can't say, 'low gas.' "—Washington D.C., July 15, 2008
"The economy is growing, productivity is high, trade is up, people are working. It's not as good as we'd like, but—and to the extent that we find weakness, we'll move."—Washington, D.C., July 15, 2008

hey angelo, your sig need an ] at the end of it

oops i'll fix it