Heartland

A lot of Europe countries kiss Russian ass, I saw on RTR planeta and other Russian TV what propoganda make russians politics. Putin said that Gerorgian makes genocide in South Osetia but we with my friends jokes. The same propoganda was in 1990-1991 when Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania started "fight" for independence. Russians always used word "boevik" they not used "soldat"-warior. There only few persons in this forum who cant understand russian language and was lived in "f**king USSR".

Take look at www.kakvakzcenter.com

eotunun wrote:@ Prescott: Learn about the Kossovo conflict. Then see just how wrong you are..

Too right ! You really have to understand what happened there. Not even close to this.

Us Canucks were there putting up that mess for years till the US got involved. We were there first, as peacekeepers then got assistance from the French.

Finally they caught that SOB Radovan Karadžić. He should BURN !

As for the US / Quebec thing, Quebec has tried playing this card before (The US has always said they would recognize a independent Quebec) it's gone nowhere and had no impact on separation. In fact separation hasn't been an issue or "news" since the 90's.

Like hell the US would ever offer them or anyone else passports though, every one would move south

Fake?

http://pix.nofrag.com/5/4/a/adceb759917 ... f3cbbc.jpg

spot778 wrote:

eotunun wrote:@ Prescott: Learn about the Kossovo conflict. Then see just how wrong you are..

Too right ! You really have to understand what happened there. Not even close to this.

Us Canucks were there putting up that mess for years till the US got involved. We were there first, as peacekeepers then got assistance from the French.

Finally they caught that SOB Radovan Karadžić. He should BURN !

As for the US / Quebec thing, Quebec has tried playing this card before (The US has always said they would recognize a independent Quebec) it's gone nowhere and had no impact on separation. In fact separation hasn't been an issue or "news" since the 90's.

Like hell the US would ever offer them or anyone else passports though, every one would move south

Yupp. And there were blue helmets from everywhere in Europe as well.
The sad thing was that the UNO never got to get a bit more pressing on the aggressive parties (which weren't the Serbs exclusively) as Russia, then lead by the alcoholic, prevented. 'Cause the serbs were Russia's old brothers in arms against the Nazis etc..
German laws had to be changed in the end, and the freshly elected government of social democrats (SPD) and the Green Party, stemming from the peace movement and smaller left wing parties ("Commies" for the majority of our north american friends. ), run by Chancelor Gerhard Schröder who now is in the board of Putin's Gasprom, ordered the first sortie of the Bundeswehr in anger. That was against Serbia.

@euphoria: I was waiting for something like that to approach. Fake or not, I had a good laugh.

euphoria wrote:Fake?

http://pix.nofrag.com/5/4/a/adceb759917 ... f3cbbc.jpg

Saved.

Well... now, it is over a few days after it had started. Russia has made its point and reasserted itself as the local bully, and that was it, mostly. Which shows only one thing: Russia, the Big Evil from The East, apparently cares more about public world opinion than the U.S., who, in their self-righteous zeal, have been giving the finger to everyone else for YEARS after they have raided Iraq.

apparently cares more about public world opinion than the U.S., who, in their self-righteous zeal, have been giving the finger to everyone else for YEARS after they have raided Iraq.

I'm sorry, who would everyone else be? You would not be including the other 27 members of the coalition would you? Because "all the countries in the world" minus "27 really important ones" doesn't sound like everyone to me.

So I must be missing something. Or you're a rash fool.

so good that peace loving Russian troops are in Gori and Poti

nodubmanshouts wrote:

apparently cares more about public world opinion than the U.S., who, in their self-righteous zeal, have been giving the finger to everyone else for YEARS after they have raided Iraq.

I'm sorry, who would everyone else be? You would not be including the other 27 members of the coalition would you? Because "all the countries in the world" minus "27 really important ones" doesn't sound like everyone to me.

So I must be missing something. Or you're a rash fool.

Good grief, at least get your numbers right. It was 49, although some have since asked to be removed once the major pieces of evidence that were produced to support the false claims of The Bush Administration and Tony Blair were proven to be false and, in the case of the yellow cake from Niger and connection to 9/11, outright forgeries and changes in various country's governments after national elections (e.g. Spain).

Turkey originally signed up, then reneged on the agreement by refusing access into Iraq via her border. Costa Rica asked to be removed at the request of their President.

The full list is/was as follows:

Afghanistan
Albania
Angola
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Costa Rica
Czech Republic
Denmark
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Honduras
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Japan
Kuwait
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Marshall Islands
Micronesia
Mongolia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Palau
Panama
Philippines
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Rwanda
Singapore
Slovakia
Solomon Islands
South Korea
Spain
Tonga
Turkey
Uganda
Ukraine
United Kingdom
United States
Uzbekistan

Only four of those 49 contributed troops; United States, United Kingdom, Australia and Poland and, out of that list, only a handful would be considered "significant players on the world stage."

Most notable by their absence from the list are the 3 other permanent members of the UN Security Council: France, Russia and China. No sign of Germany, nor The United States' greatest ally in the region, Saudi Arabia.

Considering there are 192 member states in the UN, 49 is a fairly pathetic coalition. Especially when placed against the (almost) unanimous agreement when Saddam invaded Kuwait.

According to the link below - US Dept of State - as of Aug, 2006, there were 27 countries with troops deployed in Iraq.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71613.pdf

Still, whether we talk about 27 or 49. my point being that the sentence

apparently cares more about public world opinion than the U.S., who, in their self-righteous zeal, have been giving the finger to everyone else for YEARS after they have raided Iraq.

is not only ill-informed, it is thoughtless and, dare I say, childish, when it attempts to portray the US as a lone "self righteous" country, when in fact it has at least half the G8 in agreement with it.

Enjoy of Russian propoganda (if you can understand :
http://www.vesti.ru/videos?vid=onair

nodubmanshouts wrote:According to the link below - US Dept of State - as of Aug, 2006, there were 27 countries with troops deployed in Iraq.

http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/71613.pdf

Still, whether we talk about 27 or 49. my point being that the sentence

apparently cares more about public world opinion than the U.S., who, in their self-righteous zeal, have been giving the finger to everyone else for YEARS after they have raided Iraq.

is not only ill-informed, it is thoughtless and, dare I say, childish, when it attempts to portray the US as a lone "self righteous" country, when in fact it has at least half the G8 in agreement with it.

Your figures are out of date. By August 23rd, 2006, there were 21 (non-US) countries that had forces (of varying size and deployment type) in Iraq, they are/were: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Azerbaijan, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Czech Republic, Denmark, El Salvador, Estonia, Georgia, Kazakhstan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Mongolia, Poland, Romania, South Korea, and the United Kingdom.

As for relying on US State Department figures, they can be..erm, let's say "misleading" shall we (not that that makes them unique in any way what-so-ever)?

For a far more accurate list of who's doing what and numbers contributed:

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ ... lition.htm

And you'll see just how exaggerated the claims made by The US State Department can be.

As for the G8, they are: Canada (didn't support), France (didn't support), Germany (didn't support), Italy (did support, but has since removed all troops), Japan (did support, but has since removed all troops), Russia (did not support), United Kingdom (did support) and United States. Out of the G8, only 2 countries proved troops and/or logistical support for the initial invasion.

This might be splitting hairs somewhat, but a government can say pretty much anything it wants, the vast majority of those governed, didn't support the invasion of Iraq. Anyway, it's a fairly moot point.

Besides which, we're supposed to be talking about a spot of bother in the Caucuses, not rehashing figures about Iraq.

I'm a bit confused on something...the other day, I saw an article that said this situation was over. However, last night I saw another that said "seperatists" forces had moved into more towns. Can someone clear this up? I don't know if I'm just not comprehending or if the news coverage where I live is just bad. They haven't really been reporting much on this subject. Thanks!

msm67 wrote:I'm a bit confused on something...the other day, I saw an article that said this situation was over. However, last night I saw another that said "seperatists" forces had moved into more towns. Can someone clear this up? I don't know if I'm just not comprehending or if the news coverage where I live is just bad. They haven't really been reporting much on this subject. Thanks!

The situation on the ground is rather fluid, to-say-the-least, so accurate reporting is patchy at best.

The other problem is, depending on which side of the fence the news station is on, depends entirely upon what and how things are reported.

The best bit of manipulation I've seen so far is, directly following a live interview with a Russian Government official (News 24), the BBC said: "Russia continues military activities deep inside Georgia despite having signed a ceasefire agreement." What the Russian official actually said was: "We have agreed to the ceasefire proposals as set out by the French." In diplomatic circles that is an extremely important distinction. Go figure.

@Syberberg....thank you, though I'm still a bit confused I always thought "ceasefire" meant "put your guns away and make nice". Perhaps it is different in French? If they put forth the terms, what did they tell the Russians it meant....keep doing whatever you want and it'll be okay? Somehow I get the bad feeling that this is going to go on for a while longer. I just hope that the US stays out of it. If anything is to be done, I really believe that it would be the responsibility of the EU, as this is definitely something that affects Europe. I heard Bush condemning Russia for their actions, which smacked of hypocrisy, imho. I just hope he keeps out of this, for everyone's sake!

Besides which, we're supposed to be talking about a spot of bother in the Caucuses, not rehashing figures about Iraq. Wink

Then you wouldn't mind if I have the last word then, will ya?

* I saw that Global Seurity sight before; their numbers don't add up. Read their articles again...

* Japan, Italy, UK, US (half the G8 ) publicly supported the coalition, whether they contributed troops or not (which its probably not worth going into debate on, since this is not the issue here - the question is whether the US is a rogue state against 'everyone else').

This might be splitting hairs somewhat, but a government can say pretty much anything it wants, the vast majority of those governed, didn't support the invasion of Iraq.

There you may have a point... but it may support me too. Did every Saudi Arabian citizen oppose the war? Did every US citizen support it? We'll probably never know the true numbers.

And when you take in biased media reporting, one has to wonder how much of somebody's opinion is shaped by bending of truths anyway... and that applies to all sides.

Ok guys, in my country nazis and comunists symbolism are forbidden. But you can hear only about "nazis are bad" but why you dont hear how millions people are kiled by komunists. How many of your knows that Hitler and Stalinn started 2 war when started attack to Poland? I think every should read history books...........

True that, Stalin killed more than Hitler.

Not that it's a competition.

And then there is this...

It's a small world and it smells funny

Reading history books, it should be a Law that every earthling should read one thoroughly for at least four hours a week.

IZ.

@ff....I have read many books on WWII and I think the reasons that you do not hear as much about what Stalin did is because 1) Russia was on the winning side, 2) the Nazis were more open about what they were doing and left alot of proof of their activites and 3) people were too afraid to speak up or did not have the means to speak up against Stalin and his regime. Truth is, the activities of both Hitler and Stalin were inhumane and criminal.

I remember one thing when I was child and after New Year hollydays we should write at scholl "how we made it". When I wrote about Christmas and Santa Claus my schoolmistress started shout "Do you want that I go to jail?" So dont speak about Russian politic ( russian people is another thing) if you dont have contacts with communism. My grandparent died in Siberian "lager". My
uncle was partisan, my aunt go to jail when 'ripe out' photo of Stalin, my family was in Siberia after 2 world war. So when I heard conversations about war in Ichkeria, Georgia I feel how much adrenaline come to my blood.

The sad thing in this world we are living in is that our political leaders have not learnt a thing in our history nor what war does to countries, the families where a member has died due to war nor the economic disaster it causes to the countries in question. Loads of amounts of millions go into the budgets supporting this "war" when there are countries where people are still dying because of lack of food!

Fuckwar! We need world peace but that won't happen because the leaders are all evil people looking for wealth were their noses aren't wanted and what really matters is the least of their worries...

Sad but true.

Izzy HaveMercy wrote: Reading history books, it should be a Law that every earthling should read one thoroughly for at least four hours a week.

George Santayana wrote: Those who cannot learn from history are doomed to repeat it.

If you don't mind me asking, where are you from ff ?

Debs:

"I'm gonna share with you a vision that I had, cause I love you. And you feel it. You know all that money we spend on nuclear weapons and defense each year, trillions of dollars, correct? Instead -- just play with this -- if we spent that money feeding and clothing the poor of the world -- and it would pay for it many times over, not one human being excluded -- we can explore space together, both inner and outer, forever in peace. Thank you very much. You've been great, I hope you enjoyed it."

-Bill Hicks-