Russia and Georgia...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by clocker

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

...are now in open armed conflict over the disposition of South Ossetia.

Given the structure of extant alliances, should the US send a military contingent, or allow Russia to have it's way with Georgia?

---

From a purely practical viewpoint, exactly where is this "military contingent" going to come from?
Not only is the US military strained to the breaking point man-power wise but for the past several years has tried to refashion itself to operate in a guerrilla/terrorist warfare scenario and isn't currently prepared to fight a conventional type battle.
I'm sure the Russians are perfectly aware of this and even counted on it in their preparations...

---

Indeed they did; have you seen what they're using to beat up on the Georgians?

Friggin' antiques.

The manpower problem is the unfortunate residue of Rumsfeld's miscalculation vis a vis my previous (by that I mean in a long ago, faraway, probably-not-there-anymore thread) note of burgeoning Russia, objecting to NATO's intrusion into Turkey.

Rummy had in mind nice, tidy fighting units, but he never seemed to notice a need for more than a very few of them - he apparently believed the Soviet "inclination" had been forever subliminated.

Duh.

I think NATO ought to throw in the towel and lead the UN out of their corrupt and darkened world into the daylight of AlGore's Global Warmth, wherein is secreted (and I do mean secreted) milk and honey for all. :dry:

Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling

The BBC's Gabriel Gatehouse in Gori, the largest town close to the boundary with South Ossetia, says there is a much-reduced Russian military presence there and that lorries can be seen delivering humanitarian aid.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling

---

Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Can I take it if the Georgian President's name was Hudson Austin the invasion would have been OK?:whistling

---

Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D

---

:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.

I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin

The US is not the world's policeman. So no and no.

even if america weren't in 2 wars already, how do you honestly think war with russia (on its doorstep no less) would go?

imo a military solution was never possible, so to answer j2's original question: no the US shouldn't send a 'contingent'

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

even if america weren't in 2 wars already, how do you honestly think war with russia (on its doorstep no less) would go?

imo a military solution was never possible, so to answer j2's original question: no the US shouldn't send a 'contingent'

---

At the moment, I agree.

What do you think of Russia's actions and rhetoric vis a vis their excursion into Georgia?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Not Maurice Bishop, then? :D

---

:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.

I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin

---

I just read Reagan's autobiography, wherein Austin was (I think) referred to as the leader of the junta, or what-have-you, which was getting pissy with Maggie.

I'm quite sure the CIA (and Reagan, ftm) knew who was running the show; purposely failing to identify him by name in recounting the story is a sort of run-of-the-mill tactic.

I also recently read The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister and recall the story getting the same treatment, so.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bigboab

:P I had his name down originally. I found another article that disputed who was actually in charge when the invasion took place. I found the whole thing rather confusing with different reports.

I think the CIA saw my original post and removed all internet articles that told the truth.:lol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hudson_Austin

---

I just read Reagan's autobiography, wherein Austin was (I think) referred to as the leader of the junta, or what-have-you, which was getting pissy with Maggie.

I'm quite sure the CIA (and Reagan, ftm) knew who was running the show; purposely failing to identify him by name in recounting the story is a sort of run-of-the-mill tactic.

I also recently read The President, the Pope, and the Prime Minister and recall the story getting the same treatment, so.

---

They should read our posts to get the truth.:lol: