Mikey wrote:You hosers are all missing the point that we've been making about US-bashing. Yes, I've been one of the more vocal critics of American policy in many areas among my circle of acquaintances. What I mentioned, and Kendall mistakenly refers to as Sunnyside "defending a sacred cow," is the fact that you often use tangential - or even completely unrelated - fora to take pot-shots at the US. OK, so the US has done lots of bad things. What in the name of anything has this to do with the fact that we may or may not feel that Russia is in the wrong regarding this topic's supposed theme?
Once again, why is criticising the US giving everone else a free pass?
Sure, you can take criticism of Canada. Nobody criticized Canada's lack of intervention in Darfur, because Canada obviously doesn't feel the same responsibilty to the global community that you expect we should, or - more probably - the world has come to expect Canada to do nothing. Neither I, nor Sunny, nor Monroe, nor anyone that I can think of here has (for example) brought up criticisms of Canada - especially not ones which contain more vitriol than actual critique - in, say, a topic about cotton candy.
Actually we've recieved a fair amount of flak over Darfur, as has NATO as a whole and the EU, even China and Russia have been blasted over it. Now it's kind of hard to do much when the Sudanese government will only admit AU troops isn't it? But hey that hasn't stopped the worlds wacka-loons from complaining before.
And frankly, it's best to stay out of Africa. Even if the West saved Darfur now, ten years after we leave it'll collapse into civil war and genocide again. Look at Somalia.
Bottom line is this: Do I love my country? Hell yes. Do I accept, condone, or agree with everything it does? Hell, no. Do I mind criticism of America? No, again, although insults =/= critical thought. Is any random place the place for such criticism? No.
A discussion about Russians actions in Georgia are going to lead to a discussion of US actions, the similarity between the offensive in Georgia and the actions in Iraq and Afghanistan are blatently obvious. I however expect far more in the way of warcrimes in Georgia than I do in Iraq and Afghanistan, that's a forgone conclusion with the Russian Army involved.
Kendall - I get it. An American fragged you, and you have the right to be pissed. The Army dropped the ball, and didn't take the opportunity to do the right thing. However, I didn't do anything to you; neither did any American on this board; neither did the entire American populace at large. Stop taking it out on us and then trying to convince us that it's rational criticism.
I see you've really been paying attention. I was injured through the actions of my own comrades, not Yanks. Yanks have however fragged several of my countrymen. What that has to do with a discussion about your government and it's policies, I have no idea.
I believe Russia's problem with NATO boxing them in is:
1. I means that it gets harder for them to control things further away. A nation might be less willing to follow Russia's terms on pipelines and the like if they know that, unlike Georgia, if they're invaded there will be a counter attack.
A counter-attack from what? Europe? As much as I respect the militaries in Europe, they ceased to have the capability to project force that far long ago. Hell Germany only has one armoured battalion now, ten years ago they had a division.
2. Missile defense. The more countries with anti missile systems and especially the closer they are to Russia the greater the odds a missile launch will get put down.
Yet there were no plans to put missiles or even radars in Georgia, the country wasn't even on the list to be admitted to NATO or the EU.
3. They are kind of in an awkward position in some spots Navy wise. They have/want naval bases in some regions of the Ukraine and Georgia that have highish Russian populations. They may want to move on those in the near future.
Except the Russian Navy is largely a collection of rusted hulks in port, the have some capability left and are trying to rebuild but even during the Cold War they were largely relegated to a side role. They would have been more of a nuisance than anything else. And that doesn't look to change in the near future. They have to much of a gap to close on NATO to catch up.
I can understand them not liking being boxed in. But it wouldn't matter unless they were looking to play a little dirty and bully some nations into Russian favorable trade deals or to conquer more territory.
All their gaining is a buffer in this, a buffer from nothing. NATO and the EU have neither the means or the will to do anything to Russia and it's only their own parinoia that drives them to this.
Mind you it's not like it's any secret that the Russians will bully, bribe and coierce anyone they can into orbiting them. They have a long and sordid history of that.
Personally I think a lack of such functions alliances is one of the problems in the world today, and why I wish the EU would become a respectable superpower. The power vacuum tempts all kinds of bad stuff, from everybody in a position to exploit it really.
The problem being that NATO has never been of one mind and always had competing interests *cough*France*cough* and since the end of the Cold War has been in even less agreement. Look at Afghanistan and how many nations opted out or for a non-combat role. And I hardly think we need to go over the flaws in EU unity here, there's been more than a few threads on the matter.
