Go Russia Go: Russia, Venezuela to hold naval war games
DriftingByTheStorm
Posts: 8,684
Whoopie!
Things are getting better all the time.
Russia fights back, joins hands with Venezuela to make a defiant show of multilateral naval tactics for the world to see.
You think Dick and Bush will take notice?
Russia, Venezuela to hold naval war games
And there are several more sources, for those that think "The Hindu" isn't valid. I know if it doesn't come with an illuminist stamp of approval, many here are quick to discredit it. :rolleyes:
Things are getting better all the time.
Russia fights back, joins hands with Venezuela to make a defiant show of multilateral naval tactics for the world to see.
You think Dick and Bush will take notice?
Russia, Venezuela to hold naval war games
And there are several more sources, for those that think "The Hindu" isn't valid. I know if it doesn't come with an illuminist stamp of approval, many here are quick to discredit it. :rolleyes:
If I was to smile and I held out my hand
If I opened it now would you not understand?
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
i have a thing for the underdog.
:cool:
and in this particular instance i happen to think that Russia's claim in the matter is more valid than the US imperial claim.
Russia was actually protecting its own interests, and defending the lives of those who otherwise would have been mercilessly exterminated by an aggressive Georgia ... a Georgia militarily backed, trained, funded, lead, and under the command of US\Israeli\NATO doctrine ... a Georiga that used cluster bombs to drop down on civilian targets, and a Georgia that went door to door shooting and executing innocent citizens of what it alleges is part of its own country.
There are right and wrong ways to deal with domestic unrest, and even domestic insurgency, but mass murdering your own people is NOT the right way.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Why don't you move there?
so its ok for russia to protect its own interests and not the US? why?
Defending and aggressing are two totally different things.
Russia didn't make up a false claim and invade a sovereign nation.
A sovereign nation started massacring Russian citizens, Russian sympathizers, and Russian peace keeping troops ...
they were simply defending themselves.
What instance of US protecting its own interests are you trying to compare this to, anyhow?
And OffHeGoes, you miss the fucking point.
I didn't say Russia was perfect, or that i wanted to move there.
I'm simply saying that the western mass media has GROSSLY and deliberately misrepresented the facts of what happened in SOssetia to manipulate the public in to drumming up support for a new US-Russia tension. The reality is vastly different, and GEORGIA was responsible for this, not Russia. Does no one understand the concept of a Sneak Attack on Civilian Targets any more?
You find that acceptable, humane, or justifiable, by ANY means?
Please.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
there is no proof Georgia invaded and killed thousands of civilians even though Alex Jones tells you that. the regions in question has always had russian troops there, several different ethic groups, while still being under Georgian territory.
its not as cut and dry as you make it out to be....which is Russia good, US/Georgia/Israel bad.
and your go russia go bullshit is just sick. offhegoes is right, I dont understand people like you. its a big world out there, you are free to go wherever u want. you have such hatred for everything US, think our financial system is going to collapse, think the government killed its own people, seriously, why do you stay here?
No proof?
Georgia Invaded: Reuters Says So
Georgia "SENT TROOPS", "RUSSIA RESPONDED"
Seems pretty cut and dry.
S. Ossetian Parliament Estimates Civilian Death Toll at 2,100 - Russian Military Official
"GEORGIAN ATTACK"
"LEFT 2,100 DEAD"
Hard to misread that statement, apparently coming from Ossetian Parliament itself.
And here in video, around 1:20, in case you want to dispute the source of the statistics.
So what exactly are you arguing, bub?
I don't get it.
I can give you MORE sources saying GEORGIA ATTACKED and "RUSSIA RESPONDED" if you need them,
but it sounds like what you really need is to stop plugging your goddamn ears everytime you hear the fucking truth.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
this can be played both ways. russian troops and russian rouge militias were already in South Ossetia. "Saakashvili is going to 'restore the territorial integrity of Georgia"
I'm not saying thats right or wrong but sounds like Georgia was just protecting its own interests.
you are trusting what a Russian general says. not everyone considers them honest.
that you dont fully understand that situation. and not everything is USA=bad
Georgia 'attacked' after repeatedly calling for a ceasefire and coming under fire from South Ossetian seperatists. Russia doesnt own South Ossetia to my knowledge so why it started its own 'peacekeeping' mission (even though its a member of the UN) is beyond most of the European governments here.
interestingly "...Three days after Russia's recognition of South Ossetia as an independent nation, a South Ossetian official announced that the region would soon be absorbed into Russia and Russia will open military bases there"
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/europe/article4635843.ece
give me a break. Russia used it as pretense to fuck up a western ally. dont be so naive. they weren't protecting innocent lives any more than the US was protecting Georgian lives.
i dont see a "right" side in this.
Funny,
i thought South Ossetia declared its independence almost 20 years ago, along with both Abkhazia and Transnistria.
If people are ever to be considered sovereign in their own capacity, and they organize to form a government, and that government decides to secede from a previous political association (and here i'm sort of thinking about the United States and the declaration of independence, "when in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands") ...
when that happens,
what else should be necessary for that entity to indeed be considered sovereign and self governed.
Seemingly, the political majority in South Ossetia has long since considered itself independent of Georgia, and leaning politically towards allegiance with Russia proper.
And the only denial of that political reality stems from western influence.
So, Georgia attacked and invaded a SELF-DECLARED INDEPENDENT REPUBLIC.
Let me ask you this:
If part of Russia had for over 20 years declared its independence from Russia, and had openly yearned for a strategic and political allegiance to the United States, and then after 20 years the United States said, "we recognize Region X as a sovereign nation", and then the day after that Russia declared Region X to be under the occupation of US troops and immediately moved via sneak attack to murder those "revolting" citizens of Region X, what the fuck do you think the United States would do?
In other words, can you really call Russia the aggressor, or the perpetrator of a criminal act in THIS case? They were defending a region that has, FOR A LONG TIME, said it wants to be independent, has openly and through government referendum declared its independence, and Georgia seemingly wanted to quash any hope of sovereignty and self-government from within South Ossetia.
Again, in my comparison, you think the United States would have stood by, idle?
???
source
How much more do you need to have a valid referendum?
99%
95%
35 international observers.
???
This shouldn't be about East-West politics.
This should be about what people, in their sovereign capacity for self-government and democratic self-rule want, and are entitled to by right of "god" or whatever other term you want to ascribe to the self-sovereign right of man to determine his own destiny.
Georgia is nothing more than a central government, representing its own statist interests.
If the people of South Ossetia want independence, or want to fall back to Russia, i don't think any freedom loving people (you ARE a freedom loving person, aren't you) should deny them that based on imperialist claims by a central government with its own ulterior motives.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
as for an area's right for secession, i dont know that that is a natural right. its a bit egocentric, you're using an american declaration on a very foreign nation. Sovereign nations have their own rules for seceding. i dont know that they are suppressing human rights by not allowing secession. and actually Americans and most other nations dont have the right of secession either, unlike Canada.
it seems somewhat morally neutral to me. on the one hand people want to form their own government, but others want to keep the nation intact so as not to be weakened. i dont know the right answer there. probably depends on the situation.
and why are you taking Russian news sources as fact on supposed "massacres"? i'm not sure what the truth is here, but you seem absolutely giddy to agree with them despite them being hardly credible. i dont believe official military death tolls here any more than i believe the ones from Iraq.
do you really feel that russian news agencies are credible sources of information?
i can NOT believe you are going to sit there on the fence and act like you don't understand the basic moral principle of people having an INTRINSIC right to self government.
And i REALLY can't believe you just said that Americans don't have the right of secession either.
Here, let me quote you, verbatim, from the Declaration of Independence:
We are talking about fundamental RIGHTS OF THE PEOPLE.
They are not dependent on nationality, only on the most basic and fundamental universal principles of liberty and creation.
They aren't geographically specific rights, and they aren't rights of western white men only. They are UNIVERSAL and UNALIENABLE rights of ALL men and women.
Governments around the world may or may not recognize these rights, but MAN DOES HAVE THEM, and SHOULD HE CHOOSE TO EXERCISE THEM, it would be THE DUTY of all such moral and just men to recognize, support, and otherwise advocate for the implementation of those rights.
I can't believe we have resorted to having this argument in America.
Further, i REALLY can't believe that it is MY patriotism that is so often in question, when so many on here don't seem to even understand or give a flying fuck about the MOST BASIC AND IMPERITIVE tennants of our own goddamn country.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
Lincoln disagrees with you.
is their any sort of limit here? if a few guys in a small town decide they dont want to pay taxes they can secede?
i could interpret the above to mean that the majority of the people of a country (the entire country) must decide that, not a few. its a NATIONAL decision to change government. not a minority.
we dont have the right to decide we want to tear off a piece of a country and make it our own.
Not really,
but i'm also not so stupid as to deny that from a contemporary standpoint there are some pretty serious flaws in the logic argued within The Federalist Papers concerning why a Union was preferable, and why things like permanent standing armies would NEVER happen and were in fact inhibited from happening due to ideas like limiting congressional funding of the military to 2 year authorizations.
Clearly they were a "wee bit" off the mark on some of their basic assumptions, no?
Don't get me wrong, i think the founding fathers were genius,
i just think that modern shitbags and crooked elitists are even MORE genius in a sort of evil maniacal fashion that, with complete contempt and disregard for those ideals and rules, have been able to completely pervert the very notions this country was founded upon.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
I still think you should move there.
The founders were very clear to itterate that man is the retainer of ALL rights not specificaly granted to the Federal Government, and that simply because a right was not enumerated, did NOT mean that it was not granted BY GOD.
The constitution does NOT grant rights, it ENUMERATES them.
There was a HUGE argument over that concept, because some of the founders were afraid that (and apparently rightly so, since you seem to be misguided here about such) the enumeration of CERTAIN rights would lead eventualy to the assumption that ONLY those listed rights were retained by man, when the only intention was to list out the most important and immediately identifiable rights of man.
And as for your argument that a majority, or all of a country or colony or whathaveyou should agree with a sentiment before it is "legal" or what not ....
just remember that only around 40% of colonists, and at an absolute MAXIMUM 50%, supported the revolution and independence from England, and only a mere 10-20% were actively involved in the rebellion in the beginning.
If I opened it now would you not understand?
whats funny is our politics arent that different but you're such a fundamentalist i almost never agree with you. heheh
Don't they need permission?