# The West Shouldn't Allow Georgia To Be A Sacrificial Lamb For Russia



## JimofPennsylvan (Aug 27, 2008)

The status quo in Georgia should not be acceptable to any person of good will.   This situation with the Russian Army many miles within the borders of Georgia is alarmingly wrong because it is a deep violation of Georgias sovereignty.  The location there of these Russian troops with their checkpoints, mines and other manifestations of their presence is economically strangling Georgia, hamstringing their major port of Poti and disrupting traffic flow on their major east-west thoroughfare.  If people in the world dont want to be a bunch of fools they need to start recognizing that Russia has an agenda here in Georgia which is to install a Moscow friendly government to increase Moscow's influence over world events.  One huge trophy Russia likely seeks in its internal meddling in Georgia is to get control of the oil pipeline that runs through Georgia and most importantly to prevent any more energy pipelines being built in Georgia to transport energy from countries to the east to the Black Sea, so that Russia will be the undisputed King on energy in that part of the world and thus have the enormous worldwide power that would flow from such status.  Russia's claims here that it needs these outposts in Georgia for a security zone is total bunk because as seen over the past month the Russian Army can cut-up the Georgian Army like a hot knife through soft butter.  The world needs to step-up now and make it crystal clear to leaders in Russia today and leaders like them in the future that it is done with tyranny in Europe it was done with it at the end of the Cold War and it will forever stay done.



            Unfortunately, the only language the current leaders of Russia understand is the language of power, diplomatic niceties they mock because these leaders are short in the character department.  Look at how Putin rolled back democracy (as a form of government) in Russia during his tenure as President, even look at the abominable treatment British Petroleum has received at the hands of the Russian goverment in its Russian joint venture energy company,  TNK-BP, where the Russian government has denied visas to BP employees and has conducted all these unjust investigations (tax, etc.) into the joint venture to aid the venture's Russian partners.  The current Russian leaders values are that government leaders and their allies can do whatever they want and human rights and the rule of law can be sacrificed and disregarded where it suits a governments purposes. 



            The world must speak the Russsian leaders language if it is to prevail in Georgia.  The task of the West can be identified by focusing on the words of the Russian President Medvedev when he said that it would be nothing frightening if the Western alliance were to sever all ties (over Georgia).  It appears the bullies, Vladimir and Dmitry, need a moving consequence to get them to remove their country's troops off another country's soil.  Heres a consequence that the West should embrace and offer Vladimir and Dmitry; they have forty-five days to get all their troops off Georgian soil or the U.S. is going to give the Georgian Army thirty-six cruise missiles (conventional weapons) that can reach Moscow from Georgian soil.   Lets see if Dimitry will still have his brazen attitude when the major buildings that represent the principle institutions of Russian government in Moscow are a pile of rubble. 



            To be succinct, the West needs to prepare Georgians to fight for their country.  The West needs to determine if the Georgian people are prepared to fight for their country because that is the only way they are going to get it back.  If the Georgian people are then the U.S. should carry out this aforementioned cruise missile strategy, it will give Georgia the power to give Russia a broken nose, valuable leverage for Georgia.  Practically, the Georgian people have to prepare to drive, through the use of the gun, the Russian troops presently on Georgian soil off Georgian soil which from a practical standpoint when attempted will likely bring a backlash with the Russian Army going on the offensive and driving into Georgia all the way into Tbilisi and taking over the capital.   So, the West has to arm and train the Georgian Army so they will make it enormously costly on the Russian Army when they make this offensive; hopefully, this will give the Russian Government further reason to drop this aggression in Georgia.  Moreover, and this is most important aspect of the "use of arms" stratetegy because it has the highest probability to bring success, the Georgian people have to be prepared to conduct a long-term guerrilla war against the Russian Army in Georgia so that the foolishness of the aggression and the political and economic costs cause the Russian army to leave Georgia, the Russian people like all peoples have good common sense and they aren't going to accept Russian leaders getting them into a protracted war in Georgia where their sons, brothers and husbands are dying for an unjust cause. The West needs to prepare and facilitate the Georgian people with weapons to fight such a guerriilla war against Russia.    



            Regardless of this whole Russian Army on Georgian soil question, the Georgian people need to clean house in their government and military over the unjust (probably criminal) behavior that occurred in South Ossettia at the hands of the Georgian Army.   The evidence is extensive and compelling that the Georgian Army indiscriminately killed innocent civilians with tank and other gun fire and took hostages in South Ossetia during this month's offensive there.  Although, Georgian President Mikheil Saakashvili probably did not intend such immoral behavior at the hands of his troops when he sent them into South Ossetia, it nevertheless occurred and he is culpable.  Saakashvili, the Georgian Defense Minister, the head of the Georgian Army and the top officer in charge of the South Ossetia campaign should all resign, this way the country of Georgia's credibilty as a good country can be restored and its place in the family of reputable countries can be maintained.


----------



## Orange_Juice (Aug 28, 2008)

The west, including the Unisted States, is way to much of a bunch of pussies to do anything about this


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Are you aware that Georgia started it?


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Wars begin when you please, they will not end when you will.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

> The West needs to prepare and facilitate the Georgian people with weapons to fight such a guerriilla war against Russia.


 
I think that would not be such a good idea, Jim.

Seems to me that if the USA starts arming partisans seeking to kills Russians, then the Bear wouldn't have any problem arming partisans all over the world who are interested in killing Americans.

Do we really want to go back to the days of war with Russia by proxy?

Now, things might be different if we weren't already embroiled in two land wars in Asia. It might be different if the rest of the world loved America, if we didn't have troops stationed all over the world -- many of them in places where they are there to prop up authoritarian governments with wars of terror of their own.

But the fact is that America _is_ an empire building nation no less than Russia is. Jim, and we have extended ourselves a bit further than we probably should have, already.

We are more vulnerable to terrorist attacks than Russia. 

No, I think given the lay of the land right now, given our nation's current economic and strategic and tactical state, a return to cold war by proxy would be the last thing in the world this nation (or world) needs.

The USA may still have the most powerful conventional and nuclear military in the world, but we definitely do not have the troops or the money (or the heart, either) to be fighting multiple guerilla wars in Central Asia, in the Far East, and Central and South America, too.

And you are damned right I think the Russians WOULD respond IN KIND if we did what you are advising.

Think about it for a moment.

If you ran Russia, and if you discovered that America was arming Georgians to fight a war of terror against Russian interests in a former Soviet nation, wouldn't _you_ start arming Arab terrorists, Central-and-South-American terrorists, in response?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> I think that would not be such a good idea, Jim.
> 
> Seems to me that if the USA starts arming partisans seeking to kills Russians, then the Bear wouldn't have any problem arming partisans all over the world who are interested in killing Americans.
> 
> ...



So provide us with the list of all the countries we are propping up dictators with American troops. I won't hold my breath waiting though.

Georgia is our ally, I think we should replace their entire military losses and sail the equipment in with a US battle Fleet. I think we should place US troops in Georgia and everywhere the Russians have a check point we put one ourselves. Every convoy to anywhere should be escorted by American troops and vehicles armed and willing to force the Russians to chose open war or leave the Country. Then when the Russians start shooting we can use the same excuse the whiners have used about Georgia, Russia started it!


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So provide us with the list of all the countries we are propping up dictators with American troops. I won't hold my breath waiting though.


 
Feel free to hold your breath forever...I'll wait.



> Georgia is our ally, I think we should replace their entire military losses and sail the equipment in with a US battle Fleet. I think we should place US troops in Georgia and everywhere the Russians have a check point we put one ourselves. Every convoy to anywhere should be escorted by American troops and vehicles armed and willing to force the Russians to chose open war or leave the Country. Then when the Russians start shooting we can use the same excuse the whiners have used about Georgia, Russia started it!


 
Given that you peronally want to die, I can see why you'd think WW III would be okay for the rest of us, I suppose.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> Feel free to hold your breath forever...I'll wait.
> 
> 
> 
> Given that you peronally want to die, I can see why you'd think WW III would be okay for the rest of us, I suppose.



So you admit you are full of shit when you claim we are propping up countries ALL OVER the world with troops while they fight wars of terror against their own people?

We have an ally we should back them up. All we do by NOT backing them up is show our other allies we are worthless as such.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

No, actually I do not.

Shall we start with Saddam of Iraq and work our way back in time?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 28, 2008)

There was a story on Morning Edition about S.O. today. Seems the Ossetians want to be aligned with Russia. Do their wishes matter?


----------



## dilloduck (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> No, actually I do not.
> 
> Shall we start with Saddam of Iraq and work our way back in time?



How about we start with Israel ?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> There was a story on Morning Edition about S.O. today. Seems the Ossetians want to be aligned with Russia. Do their wishes matter?



Just as much as the Southern States wishes matter during the Civil War.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Just as much as the Southern States wishes matter during the Civil War.


Then we agree? S.O. had a right to be it's own country?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

editec said:


> No, actually I do not.
> 
> Shall we start with Saddam of Iraq and work our way back in time?



You did not say this?

"It might be different if the rest of the world loved America, if we didn't have troops stationed all over the world -- many of them in places where they are there to prop up authoritarian governments with wars of terror of their own."

Careful now, you can not go back and edit it.

What Authoritarian Governments are we propping up with American troops?

Germany? 

England?

Italy?

Kosovo?

Bosnia?

Japan?

South Korea?

Am I to understand you think Iraq or Afghanistan are Authoritarian Governments waging wars of terror on their people?

Come on which of these are you talking about?


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Then we agree? S.O. had a right to be it's own country?



NO, retard we do not. If you knew history at all the South was forced BACK into the Union. But then expecting YOU to know any facts or history IS a stretch indeed.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> NO, retard we do not. If you knew history at all the South was forced BACK into the Union. But then expecting YOU to know any facts or history IS a stretch indeed.


STFU, troll. The South had a right to do what it did, and the Union had a right to not let them.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> STFU, troll. The South had a right to do what it did, and the Union had a right to not let them.



As the Georgians have a RIGHT to force them back into Georgia. It is an INTERNAL matter and no business of Russia. Now since Russia insists on intervening, then we have every right to respond in defense of OUR ally. Or have you missed that Europe AGREES with us?


----------



## Ravi (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> As the Georgians have a RIGHT to force them back into Georgia. It is an INTERNAL matter and no business of Russia. Now since Russia insists on intervening, then we have every right to respond in defense of OUR ally. Or have you missed that Europe AGREES with us?


Yes, the Georgians do, but we haven't the right or the abililty to fight their battles for them. Not to mention that since Georgia doesn't belong to NATO that we don't even have the obligation.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, the Georgians do, but we haven't the right or the abililty to fight their battles for them. Not to mention that since Georgia doesn't belong to NATO that we don't even have the obligation.



We have a separate treaty with Georgia, or did you miss that part? And last I checked we do not only have treaties with NATO. We do not just act in case NATO ok's it. You may want to actually learn how foreign affairs work.


----------



## Ravi (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> We have a separate treaty with Georgia, or did you miss that part? And last I checked we do not only have treaties with NATO. We do not just act in case NATO ok's it. You may want to actually learn how foreign affairs work.


I know how they work...protect our own interests in the short term with no thought for the long term.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So provide us with the list of all the countries we are propping up dictators with American troops. I won't hold my breath waiting though.



Well I don't know about all over the world but...

In the 1950's America removed a Democratically elected government and installed the Shah back in Iran, the Shah being a military dictator.  We did this because the Iranian government wanted to nationalize it's oil fields.

As far as the situation with Georgia and Russia goes, the United States isn't able to be of much assistance.  We're fighting two wars currently and using the rest of our resources to maintain the rest of our empire.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Then we agree? S.O. had a right to be it's own country?


 

I don't.

Osettians came to Georgia in mideval times.  It was GEORGIA then, and its still GEORGIA.

Ruaaia, on the other hand took over Geogia by force in the late 19th century.

It was never russia, (or the Soviety union) and it's STILL not Russia.

That said, there's damned little American can do about all this given the fact that we're spread thin militarily, politically and fiscally.

Diplomacy is the best bet Georgia has, methinks.


----------



## editec (Aug 28, 2008)

AS to RGS's desire that we dicusss the various places that I think we're propping up dictatorships?

Let's take that to another thread, okay?


----------



## Jeepers (Aug 28, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> So provide us with the list of all the countries we are propping up dictators with American troops. I won't hold my breath waiting though.
> 
> Georgia is our ally, I think we should replace their entire military losses and sail the equipment in with a US battle Fleet. I think we should place US troops in Georgia and everywhere the Russians have a check point we put one ourselves. Every convoy to anywhere should be escorted by American troops and vehicles armed and willing to force the Russians to chose open war or leave the Country. Then when the Russians start shooting we can use the same excuse the whiners have used about Georgia, Russia started it!


Bit of a problem with that since our troops are on loan in Iraq...


----------



## Jeepers (Aug 28, 2008)

Ravi said:


> Yes, the Georgians do, but we haven't the right or the abililty to fight their battles for them. Not to mention that since Georgia doesn't belong to NATO that we don't even have the obligation.



Up until las week they actually had boots on the ground in Iraq.. I'd say we owe em a little something. Not to mention, we trained their soldiers and they ran like little girls after holding off the army for a few hours.. kind of embarrassing for us..


----------



## ABikerSailor (Aug 28, 2008)

Gunny, how in the hell do you propose that we assist Georgia, when the current Chimp in Charge is too fucking stupid to do anything?  We went into the wrong country to avenge 9/11, we are spread too thin, and there isn't really a damn thing that we can do currently until the idiot in the White House leaves.

Yeah....Georgia is our ally, but we don't have anything that we can give to help them out.


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 28, 2008)

Random remark:
Note to Southern (be they Ossetian or American) seperatists: Get Allied with Russia!
I bet Putin would enthusiastically support a renewed movement for the Souths independence. 


Could not resist at that one.


----------



## Inferno (Aug 30, 2008)

After the fiasco in Iraq it is tough for the US to take a moral high ground since we sank so low ourselves.


----------



## editec (Aug 30, 2008)

There was never a nation called Ossetia...never that I know of at, least. 

Ossetia is and has always been a region of Georgia.

The Ossetians came to the land called Georgia, a land controlled by the Georgians and they became part of that nation.

Georgia only became part of Imperial Russia by force, you know, and that happened around 1800

Now that Georgia is an independent nation again,  I personally think that Ossetia should continue to be part of that nation, just as it had been for_ centuries_ before Russia took it over _by force_.*

* (the relationship of Georgia to Tsarist Russia is _way_ more complex than I have time to explain, but Georgia was an independent nation, one with its own peers of the realm and its own unique history, and it was basically strong armed into becoming part of the Tsarist Russian Empire).


----------



## mightypeon (Aug 31, 2008)

Well, they could have chosen between the Sultan and the Tzar and went with the Tzar.
The Caucasus was the Balkan of Asia, with a bunch of not really independent small states and major powers around it.

The closest thing to Ossetia would, in my eyes, be Taiwan.
Like Taiwan, Ossetia is, historically, a part of the country it is breaking away from. 
However, in both cases the current incarnation of the gouverment of the host country never had de facto control over the break away province. Georgias gouverment never ruled south Ossetia (nor Abkhazia) since they split away from the SU just as the ChiComms never controlled Taiwan.

I mean, would there be any "Chinas territorial integrity must be preserved!" sayers if China would attack and invade Taiwan at the day of the Superbowl?


----------



## Diuretic (Aug 31, 2008)

Sakashvilli fucked up big time.  Let him eat it now.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 31, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Well I don't know about all over the world but...
> 
> In the 1950's America removed a Democratically elected government and installed the Shah back in Iran, the Shah being a military dictator.  We did this because the Iranian government wanted to nationalize it's oil fields.
> 
> As far as the situation with Georgia and Russia goes, the United States isn't able to be of much assistance.  We're fighting two wars currently and using the rest of our resources to maintain the rest of our empire.


WRONG
the Shah was ALREADY Shah
all we did was advise him to do what he already had the authority to do


----------



## Sunni Man (Aug 31, 2008)

Georgia is just a little Israel. It is ruled by Zionist Jews. I wish Russia would just erase it from the map.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 31, 2008)

Sunni Man said:


> Georgia is just a little Israel. It is ruled by Zionist Jews. I wish Russia would just erase it from the map.


WHA??????????

um, have you seen their flag?


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 31, 2008)

Orange_Juice said:


> The west, including the Unisted States, is way to much of a bunch of pussies to do anything about this



Remember, everything is about money and power.  We fucked with Iraq and that took balls when the rest of the world warned us not to.  So we did anyways, and now is anyone shocked russia and china will make a power grab too.  
I don't think we have the nerve to get involved, nor the interest.  This was a conflict created by the gop, much like the iran hostage scandle.  They were losing every issue and thought starting up the cold war would work.  it hasn't.  fuck georgia.  that south essentia, or whatever it is called, can do whatever it wants to do.  russia too.  

so now the gop would call me a pussy and then I'd be weak on fighting communism.  mccarthyism!

people really don't know their being manipulated.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 31, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> Remember, everything is about money and power.  We fucked with Iraq and that took balls when the rest of the world warned us not to.  So we did anyways, and now is anyone shocked russia and china will make a power grab too.
> I don't think we have the nerve to get involved, nor the interest.  This was a conflict created by the gop, much like the iran hostage scandle.  They were losing every issue and thought starting up the cold war would work.  it hasn't.  fuck georgia.  that south essentia, or whatever it is called, can do whatever it wants to do.  russia too.
> 
> so now the gop would call me a pussy and then I'd be weak on fighting communism.  mccarthyism!
> ...


yeah, we did Iraq alone :eyeroll:


----------



## sealybobo (Aug 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, we did Iraq alone :eyeroll:



England, poland.  Did you ever see  that list of who was helping us and how many troops from each country were there?  it was pathetic.  Yes, we basically went in with just england.

Or did you pay attention how one after another our alliies became the coalition of the unwilling?

I get the feeling you know the gop is fos and you just believe they will benefit you more than the dems will.  you are wrong, but you'll have to figure that out for yourself.


----------



## DiveCon (Aug 31, 2008)

sealybobo said:


> England, poland.  Did you ever see  that list of who was helping us and how many troops from each country were there?  it was pathetic.  Yes, we basically went in with just england.
> 
> Or did you pay attention how one after another our alliies became the coalition of the unwilling?
> 
> I get the feeling you know the gop is fos and you just believe they will benefit you more than the dems will.  you are wrong, but you'll have to figure that out for yourself.


well, you are entitled to your opinion, just as i am
however, it is MY opinion you are so far outside reality you dont know what the hell you are talking about


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Aug 31, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> WRONG
> the Shah was ALREADY Shah
> all we did was advise him to do what he already had the authority to do



I didn't say the Shah wasn't the Shah, in fact I very cleverly referred to the Shah as the Shah.  The link below sheds light on the situation.

New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I didn't say the Shah wasn't the Shah, in fact I very cleverly referred to the Shah as the Shah.  The link below sheds light on the situation.
> 
> New York Times Special Report: The C.I.A. in Iran


then how did we "install" him if he was already what he was?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

I believe Shah was more of a ceremonial title at the time, much like the Queen of England.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I believe Shah was more of a ceremonial title at the time, much like the Queen of England.


if so, how did he already had the authority to dismiss the PM?
the PM that had already completed his term and was refusing to step down
HMMMMMM


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, we did Iraq alone :eyeroll:



You practically did. The Brits were there for a while, but it cost the Labour Party a lot of MPs being kicked out of parliament.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> I believe Shah was more of a ceremonial title at the time, much like the Queen of England.



No, he was an autocrat and had absolute rule (with the help of the army and secret police)


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Dr Grump said:


> You practically did. The Brits were there for a while, but it cost the Labour Party a lot of MPs being kicked out of parliament.


yeah, the brits helps a little, and just forget about those 29 other countries


:eyeroll:


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

Yes, he had absolute rule after the CIA removed an elected government for him.


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, the brits helps a little, and just forget about those 29 other countries
> 
> 
> :eyeroll:



Yeah, like that great fighting nation Albania...and let's not forget the Estonians. Now, take out all those countries that were only doing it to curry favour with the US, and how many do you think REALLY gave a stuff about Iraq?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Yes, he had absolute rule after the CIA removed an elected government for him.


WRONG
the CIA only advised the Shah to do what he already had the power to do
we didnt remove ANYONE


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 1, 2008)

Who cares, the Shah was an arsehole...


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> WRONG
> the CIA only advised the Shah to do what he already had the power to do
> we didnt remove ANYONE



Did you not check out the link I posted?  It's been proven that America and Britain put the Shah back in power.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Did you not check out the link I posted?  It's been proven that America and Britain put the Shah back in power.


no it didnt
the shah was ALREADY IN POWER
:wall:


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

So their elected government that was removed in 1953 was a myth?


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> So their elected government that was removed in 1953 was a myth?


the only thing that was removed was the PM


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

An elected Prime Minister was removed by the United States and Great Britain, and in his place was put a military dictator, the Shah.  This was done because the Prime Minister wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, which posed a problem for Great Britain.

Mohammed Mosaddeq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> An elected Prime Minister was removed by the United States and Great Britain, and in his place was put a military dictator, the Shah.  This was done because the Prime Minister wanted to nationalize Iranian oil, which posed a problem for Great Britain.
> 
> Mohammed Mosaddeq - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


incorrect


and did you notice the warning at the top of that wiki page?


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> incorrect
> 
> 
> and did you notice the warning at the top of that wiki page?



Please feel free to go into detail about what actually happened then.  As far as I can tell the story goes as follows:

The Prime Minister nationalized the Iranian oil industry which Great Britain had owned previously.  The Shah fled the country after asking the PM to leave his position and the PM refused.  Great Britain and America remove the Prime Minister, and the Shah is returned to power.  The Prime Minister was an elected official, whereas the Shah was royalty and became a military dictator.

As I said, feel free to correct any mistakes.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Please feel free to go into detail about what actually happened then.  As far as I can tell the story goes as follows:
> 
> The Prime Minister nationalized the Iranian oil industry which Great Britain had owned previously.  The Shah fled the country after asking the PM to leave his position and the PM refused.  Great Britain and America remove the Prime Minister, and the Shah is returned to power.  The Prime Minister was an elected official, whereas the Shah was royalty and became a military dictator.
> 
> As I said, feel free to correct any mistakes.


why dont you try reading the actual "operation Ajax" document


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

Everything I'm reading continually backs up everything I said, other than my false assumption that at any point was the Shah simply a "ceremonial" position.


----------



## BaronVonBigmeat (Sep 1, 2008)

As Pat Buchanan has said, Georgia started it, Russia finished it. People have the right to alter or abolish their governments. We shouldn't be supporting either side of course.


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> yeah, the brits helps a little, and just forget about those 29 other countries
> 
> 
> :eyeroll:



Like Micronesia, Palau, Eritrea and Albania? 
Although there were some decent minor powers like f.e. Denmark or Poland, and some actual entitiys like Japan and Great Britain, a significant amount of the coalition does not even have an army. It would have been nice if all those tiny-island states would give free accomodation for Irak Vets, they have really nice beaches.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Coalition Members


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 1, 2008)

Ok, lets start with members whihc have absolutly no significance whatsorever:
-Albania
-Angola
-Costa Rica
-Dominican republic
-El Salvador
-Eritrea
-Honduras
-Iceland
-Macedonia
-Marshall Islands
-Micronesia
-Nicaragua
-Palau
-Panama
-Rwanda
-Solomon Islands
-Tonga

Thats already 17 out of 49.
I do not claim that any nation in the CoW is irrelavant, its simply strange to include nations with absolutly no military, industrial or strategic capacities.
Germany, which was vehemently opposed to the Irak war made a more substantial contribution to it (by providing flight rights and guarding American baracks in Germany) than up to half of the coalition members.
If someone who is opposed to an undertaking aids you more than a member of your coalition, than the coalition has some significant problems.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 1, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> Ok, lets start with members whihc have absolutly no significance whatsorever:
> -Albania
> -Angola
> -Costa Rica
> ...



Usual blather from the unknowing and uncaring. The fact is the US had the support of 49 nations and there are what? Only 180 in the UN? Almost a third supported it and yet we hear the idiotic term "unilateral" by people like you.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 1, 2008)

By the way El Salvador sent troops.


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 1, 2008)

Majority of mankind? If you go after population numbers the CoW amounts to around 1 billion. One out of 6 is not the majority.
Any many of the CoW member were absolutly not representative about the Irak view of their populations.


----------



## editec (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> WRONG
> the Shah was ALREADY Shah
> all we did was advise him to do what he already had the authority to do


 


The CIA was heavily involved in putting the Shah on the throne. This isn't disputed history, either, BTW.

It was about oil, of course.

Try reading some of these:

The CIA in Iran - Empire? - Global Policy Forum
The CIA in Iran - Empire? - Global Policy Forum


----------



## Dr Grump (Sep 1, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> Usual blather from the unknowing and uncaring. The fact is the US had the support of 49 nations and there are what? Only 180 in the UN? Almost a third supported it and yet we hear the idiotic term "unilateral" by people like you.



To curry favour with the US. None of them gave a flying fuck about Iraq and you know it. Stop being so disingenuous. Is your love of Bush so blind you'll even give something this obvious a pass? Pathetic (even for you)...


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 1, 2008)

Actually, Kuwait may be seen as a CoW member which did care about Irak.


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

editec said:


> The CIA was heavily involved in putting the Shah on the throne. This isn't disputed history, either, BTW.
> 
> It was about oil, of course.
> 
> ...



Thank you.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

editec said:


> The CIA was heavily involved in putting the Shah on the throne. This isn't disputed history, either, BTW.
> 
> It was about oil, of course.
> 
> ...


WRONG, the Shah was ALREADY Shah, thus ALREADY *ON* THE THRONE


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 1, 2008)

Kevin_Kennedy said:


> Thank you.


his source is WRONG, as are YOU


----------



## Kevin_Kennedy (Sep 1, 2008)

DiveCon said:


> his source is WRONG, as are YOU



You're right that the Shah was the Shah, and that he was on the throne.  However, he fled the country when it became clear that the tide had turned in the Prime Minister's favor.  It's hard to be in power when you've fled your own country.  With the help of the CIA the Prime Minister was taken down and the Shah was returned to power.

Therefore, the United States removed a popularly elected official and put in his place a military dictator.


----------



## HoleInTheVoid (Sep 11, 2008)

editec said:


> The CIA was heavily involved in putting the Shah on the throne. This isn't disputed history, either, BTW.
> 
> It was about oil, of course.
> 
> ...



Yeah...and?

An expansionist USSR with a puppet regime in Iran to threaten world oil supplies would have guaranteed WW3.


----------



## mightypeon (Sep 12, 2008)

A very bold statement


----------



## Modbert (Sep 12, 2008)

mightypeon said:


> A very bold statement



I really don't have time to respond to many of the countries on that list.

However, I will respond to one special one before I go.

Afghanistan is a member of the Coalition of the Willing with their army?

Oh right, our army!

Of course a country is going to be a Coalition of the Willing when we're in their country with thousands of troops trying to rebuild the place (well after the Taliban and us destroyed it with fighting). 

What are they gonna say?

"Thanks but no thanks?"

They're not Sarah Palin, if they are for something then they are going to stay for it.


----------



## RetiredGySgt (Sep 12, 2008)

Robert_Santurri said:


> I really don't have time to respond to many of the countries on that list.
> 
> However, I will respond to one special one before I go.
> 
> ...



You do not have time to provide that evidence that FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? But you can post this drivel in this thread.


----------



## DiveCon (Sep 12, 2008)

RetiredGySgt said:


> You do not have time to provide that evidence that FDR knew about and allowed Pearl Harbor to happen? But you can post this drivel in this thread.


drivel requires no real thought process 


neither does snark


----------



## waltky (Oct 9, 2015)

ICC to look into war crimes in 2008 Russian/Georgia conflict...

*ICC plans war crimes probe into Russian-Georgian conflict*
_Oct. 8, 2015  -- The International Criminal Court plans to open an investigation into possible war crimes committed in the 2008 Russian-Georgian conflict, the first time Russia's actions will be investigated by the court._


> The ICC, headquartered in The Hague, Netherlands, assigned the case to a pre-trial chamber after prosecutor Fatou Bensouda declared her intent to submit a request to open an investigation on the conflict.  "On the basis of the information available, prosecutor Bensouda has concluded that there is a reasonable basis to believe that crimes within the jurisdiction of the court have been committed in Georgia in the context of the armed conflict of August 2008," the ICC wrote in a statement.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Igrok_ (Oct 17, 2015)

How an old and irrelevant topic.


----------

