Georgia and Russia

[desperado2008]

Exactly, it's a matter of the will of power instead of sex.

 

sadly in China the concept of feminism turned out to be a joke, actually I call it pseufeminism， cause more and more chinese women become prostitutes, in one form or another, in the name of feminism and freedom of sexuality. but never mistake that the chinese pseufeminist would ever fall in love with a chinese poorman, no way. you know how much time shoud a common chineseman take to earn sufficient money to marry a chinesewomen? Ten years at least. they chase every chance to marry the rich men and whitemen, they are victims of the rich and power as well as oppressors of the poor. equality can never be the goal they pursue. that's not feminism but egoism.

[dezdimona]

Exactly, it's a matter of the will of power instead of sex.

 

sadly in China the concept of feminism turned out to be a joke, actually I call it pseufeminism， cause more and more chinese women become prostitutes, in one form or another, in the name of feminism and freedom of sexuality. but never mistake that the chinese pseufeminist would ever fall in love with a chinese poorman, no way. you know how much time shoud a common chineseman take to earn sufficient money to marry a chinesewomen? Ten years at least. they chase every chance to marry the rich men and whitemen, they are victims of the rich and power as well as oppressors of the poor. equality can never be the goal they pursue. that's not feminism but egoism.

Its called wanting a better life,thats a common human trait,it belongs to people all over,not just one region of the earth!

[desperado2008]

I know that, I too have desire of improving my life, but by honest earning.

I don't give a damn about who trade their bodies for money, that's their right, I just can't tolerate they turn back to look down on other hard-working unwealthy people. as your fellow citizen said more than once, "USE" chinesewomen, it's the fact that no one can deny. I don't think there's true love between them, not at all. actually it's absolutely disgusting.

what I said is what I saw, I don't have to bootlick anybody.

[hoots7]

If my memory serves they have hated each other for decades, or even longer so I find it hard to talk intelligently or take a side on the subject besides saying that collateral damage is never good & it's been reported that Russia has killed many civilians.

[FesterbyNice]

hoots7, I agree completely. However, what I find quite worrying about the Russians is that they are now expanding into Georgia proper, and have despatched a fleet to the Black Sea. Also, the lying and twisting by some officials in interviews has been quite incredible. My personal favourite is that of Russian Deputy Prime Minister Sergei Ivanov stating without question that Russian troops were not stationed in Georgia proper, and never would be, but then a moment later (after he had been told by the interviewer that his OWN MINISTER OF DEFENCE had earlier told the world press that troops were now assuming positions inside Georgia) claiming that Russian troops had been despatched as a 'peacekeeping' force to areas of Georgia. I just wish that both sides could be honest and upfront, with no exageration and with good clean reporting. The Georgians seem as guilty of this. It all seems so unneccesary when people who just want to live their lives are dying.

 

I personally think that theInternational Community should be doing far more to engage with both sides, rather than bickering in backrooms and sitting on the fence.

[nosisab]

The great Philosopher "Confused" said once (or not, I'm the confused now)

 

The more someone don't knows about something the more he have to talk about it.

 

I have learned across my life to place my confidence in the news aways trying to see whom they serves better. Governments have perfected for ages now the marvelous art of propaganda, the no-information, the misinformation and the counter-information.

 

One must consult with his own bias. To be in the fairness and the justice side isn't aways according that bias, yet standing against it may seen treason to our own principles.

 

Somewhere I read: War isn't about what is right, war is about what is left.

 

That like any other struggle for something will be about interests the real victims aren't aways concerned. It will be about resources, it will be about beliefs, it will be about segregation or it will be about mere intolerance, often a mix of these.

 

There isn't a single answer to all cases, each one carries it's own load of circumstances.

 

Yet, our is the role to shun abuses the louder we can, we just need care not adding to it.

[Timihendrix91]

The ethical thing for the US and the UK is to back Georgia up. Not necessarily with military force, but backing them up politically and through other means. Not doing so is like abandoning your best budy when he gets into a fight. It's not about money here; I don't see any dollar signs.

Georgia STARTED THE CONFLICT. They attacked a city where 90% OF IT'S POPULATION WERE RUSSIAN PASSPORT HOLDERS. If someone did this to the US, people would be saying "go to war! go to war!". Of course, because of anti-russian brainwashing and McCarther-ism, people always view Russia as the "bad guy".

 

Then that same person comes up to you with an olive branch after unloading several clips of ammo at you. Would you accept that olive branch? I wouldn't; I'd be shooting back at the fart.

I don't know what you are talking about. Russia called an emergency meeting of the UN safety council BEFORE this incident happened. The US, UK, and other Nato countries backed Georgia though, and it fell through.

 

Ah, and great women they were too!

Right, because murder, treason, pointless wars etc are all things to be considered "great".

 

And my comment on hurt national pride was a generalisation about wars in general, please don't take my words out of context,make off hand comments and then assume because I'm a woman I'm stupid

I don't assume that you' stupid because you're a woman. if that's what you meant, you definitely did not clarify.

 

Wars are started by men for the most part,for power and greed and yes!!!! Hurt national pride!

Women are more apt to work things out then to raise a weapon in anger!

The only place a woman should rule is in the kitchen.

 

See? I can make sexist and ignorant comments too. You really have no source for your claim. The truth is, both genders are equally capable of rule.

 

Margaret Thatcher went to war with Argentina over the Falkland Islands without undue qualms (granted, Argentina started it by seizing those islands), proving that any national leader will pursue a casus bellum if the situation requires it. Eleanor Roosevelt made countless decisions on behalf of her husband during his extended illness during WWII, handling it quite capably.

She was also the one that pushed Bush Sr. to invade Iraq afer it invaded Kuwait, and also urged him to occupy Iraq. Fortunately, had the sense to not go that far. Unfortunately, his son didn't seem to pick up on that.

 

Philosopher "Confused"

Wow, it's Confucius, buddy. :wallbash:

[desperado2008]

"The more someone don't knows about something the more he have to talk about it."

 

Confucius didn't say like this, though it's indeed a chinese proverb.

[DarkWarrior45]

I ask you Timihendrix91, why were Russian Peacekeeping forces in Ossetia in the first place? Ossetia is a breakaway province of "Georgia," thus simply by having those peacekeeping forces there, Russia was displaying a sign of aggression against Georgia by supporting a breakaway province in that manor.

 

Number 2, the US and the UK orders their civilians to evacuate an area that is in conflict. For example, the UK ordered 200 British subjects to evacuate Georgia. The US ordered it's civilians to leave the Lebanon when that conflict started. Russia did not do this, instead they sent "peace keeping forces" In my opinion Russia's being a big hypocrite in this conflict.

 

BTW, the Ukraine is saying that they are going to block Russian Naval forces. Will Russia attack the Ukraine also? IF they do, then it will remove all doubt that Russia is the aggressor in this conflict.

[humanbean234]

Recent update: The Georgian contingent of troops in Iraq (some 2,000 soldiers) are being returned to Georgia to help fight the Russians. The US is providing airlift assistance, and is currently scrambling to reposition forces to man the checkpoints that the Georgians had occupied.

 

Link to the Wall Street Journal article;

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1218426610...=googlenews_wsj

 

Now, on the subject of the UK's track-record in Southwest Asia...

T.E. Lawrence (famously known as Lawrence of Arabia) persuaded the Arabs to fight against the Ottoman Empire forces during WWI with promises of assistance and independance. These promises were not backed up by the British government or the League of Nations, and the British Mandate of Mesopotamia (the division of the Ottoman Empire in 1920) installed a High Commisioner (Sir Percy Cox) to govern the territory now known as Iraq. While treaties eventually installed King Faisal II, beginning the brief period of the Hashemite Dynasty, the UK effectively dominated Iraq politically and economically, and the Iraq Petroleum Company (formerly the Turkish Petroleum Company) held a virtual monopoly on Iraqi oil exports from 1925 until 1961, when the new republic-style government (installed by a coup in 1958) nationalized the oil industry, taking most of that petroleum out of British hands.

 

Now, considering how much money had been lost to the UK when they lost control of Iraq's oil, does anyone wonder why the UK (which just happened to be led by Margaret Thatcher at the time) was so eager to take action against Iraq in 1990, following the invasion of Kuwait?

 

Like I've said countless times, it's all about natural resources (and money).