Trouble in South Ossetia escalates

[consequences]

Amazingly enough, the French then killed basically everyone in their country that we had legitimate reason to be grateful too, and there's that slight matter of that little undeclared naval war we had with them in the last days of the eighteenth century.

I suggest that you not mistake the people who helped us out of enlightened self interest(ntm the desire to make life difficult for the British in general) 220 years ago with the people we're dealing with today.

I am a historian. You do not need to enlighten me about the general events of the last three centuries. The comment is rhetoric hyperbole, a concept you are probably unfamiliar with. And hooray for you taking one quote and implying that is the general meaning of the article. Which is, in fact, more a bludgeon to quickly answer idiots like those who describe the french as arrogant cowards. Seriously. Did you expect a historical essay at that link or what?

I'm sorry, as a historian, do you value rhetorical hyperbole more than actually accurately depicting the truth of past events? You quoted the 'ungrateful' bit in your link, and you don't expect to be called on it, at this forum of all places?

And yeah, I read the article. It kind of left stuff out, like the shit I mentioned, in the three pages where it spent more time whinging about how no one could have stopped the Germans than any other individual event(apparently Stalin was 'terrified' of Hitler, which is definitely worth a giggle). If he's going to whinge about people misrepresenting history, and then do the same thing himself, I'm going to call him a hatfucker, and you an accomplice for suggesting that we read incomplete tripe.

Is three pages not an essay now, oh great historian? Did you even bother to read the link yourself?

Also, I suggest you not mistake the people who "surrendered" in WWII for the french of today.

Never said that I did. Feel free to try to put other words in my mouth though.

[Vympel]

What will happen to those vehicles/munitions that were captured? Will some go into museums, and the rest put in service (T-72s, BMPs, BTRs etc)?

Probably hand them over to the South Ossetians. Take a few to Moscow to put in Kubinka.

[Thanas]

Correct. It is a bludgeon to deal with those idiots who make little or no distinction between the french of 1940 and the whole french history. Also, it quite nicely deals with the charge of cowardice.

Your bludgeon is quite nice yet so obvious in this case I think people are taking you for being arrogant in the posting, hence the replies.

*Shrug*. Well, that may be the case, though even if I were that arrogant, I fail to see why people flip off at me instead at the even more arrogant and ahistorical position of "all french are cowardly scum". Truth is, this is not the first time I have encountered that position and I simply haven't got the patience to write a full length historical essay about the french anymore.

They may have not been over run in the Great War the way there were in WWII but they were hardly doing well in the Trenches. Sorry, but the Germans were well with in French terrirtory and were not repelled for years. Sure the French held them with allied help but that's not a win, that's a holding action which by definition is defensive.

I wonder which western nation in that position would have been better off. I personally think the french did the best they could and certainly this is enough to absolve them of any notion of cowardice, considering they were up against a nation that had twice the industry and manpower they had and which had already beaten them in 1871. Joffe alone is sufficient for this.

Also they didn't fair too well in Indochina in the 50's-60's which probably doesn't help their rep much in America since Vietnam isn't exactly a good topic here either.

Well, yeah. Still doesn't make them any cowards. If anything, one could turn around and say that the real cowards were the americans, since they had far more resources at their disposal than the french.

I thought we were talking about stereotypes? Or just American ones?

Block was talking about the american stereotype of the french, which was the thing I was talking about.

Anyway, in general, I find the charge of cowardice simply disgusting, since IMO it is nowhere near justified in history. It also doesn't help that it is most often made by chickenhawks or armchair generals. The fact that it is still repeated even after it got so much airtime during the Iraq war makes it even more disgusting.

Plus, this only started in force when they stood up to american jingoism during the first Bush presidency.

French bashing has been a popular sport long before that man, and quite bad frog bashing. Between resentment for 'bailing them out twice' but the French bailing out of NATO militarily, resentment for their fuck ups in Nam, which the Americans tried and failed their hand at (so we're not scot free on that one either) and quite honestly their 'save the French culture from encroching Americanism' sprinkled on top.

There is plenty in there to foster resentment or perceived resentment, and it's a lot older than King George.

Okay. Well, I see it only from a continental perspective. If this is indeed an american sport...well, let's just say it does not reflect very well on americans. Mostly because all those perceived reasons are pretty much nonexistent IMO (bailing them out twice.... ; they have rejoined Nato and were always clear on defending Europe in case of Soviet aggression and if one wants to look at "save their culture", one only needs to point to the current discussion of non-english speaking immigrants inside the USA). So yeah, they are a bit paranoid. Hardly justifies painting them as "cowardly frogs".

[Thanas]

I'm sorry, as a historian, do you value rhetorical hyperbole more than actually accurately depicting the truth of past events? You quoted the 'ungrateful' bit in your link, and you don't expect to be called on it, at this forum of all places?

And yeah, I read the article. It kind of left stuff out, like the shit I mentioned, in the three pages where it spent more time whinging about how no one could have stopped the Germans than any other individual event(apparently Stalin was 'terrified' of Hitler, which is definitely worth a giggle). If he's going to whinge about people misrepresenting history, and then do the same thing himself, I'm going to call him a hatfucker, and you an accomplice for suggesting that we read incomplete tripe.

Apparently to you, every rebuttal needs to be written out as precisely and concise as if it were a scientific publication. Newsflash - this is not the New Yorker. The article did one thing: Tell idiots that their allegation of cowardice was completely wrong. Which is what the matter at hand was. That it is inaccurate in details does not change the fact that the general gist of the article is correct. BTW, anyone who read it should have realized it was rhetoric hyperbole.

Yes, the author does make several mistakes. Guess what? Minor inaccuracies do not mean that the general gist is wrong. Amazingly, you immediately started to nitpick it:

Amazingly enough, the French then killed basically everyone in their country that we had legitimate reason to be grateful too, and there's that slight matter of that little undeclared naval war we had with them in the last days of the eighteenth century.

I suggest that you not mistake the people who helped us out of enlightened self interest(ntm the desire to make life difficult for the British in general) 220 years ago with the people we're dealing with today.

; therefore implying that the article was incorrect and that one is quite right in calling the french cowards.

Leaving aside the matter that you are probably quite proud of the founding fathers and that the french did not kill basically everyone that the american had legitimate reason to be grateful too (and if you really want to do this, prove that the french killed basicallly every soldier, bankier, politician etc who was involved in this), leaving aside the matter that the gratitude was owed to the entire nation of France in much the same way the nation of america deserves gratitude for liberating France in WWII, leaving aside the fact that the naval war was basically insignificant compared to the real wars that were fought with Great Britain etc.....

Leaving all that aside, what exactly is your point, idiot? It is rhetoric hyperbole. A bludgeon to reply to a retarded insult. I have said so numerous times in this thread. It is not needed to be particularly accurate to fulfill that function.

[Darth Hoth]

Well yeah. However, that alone is not very sufficient to explain american animosity. One can make such statements about every country (Germany being the perfect example). However, I think there is a deeper level at play here - the French practise a model of government and social politics that are very far removed from America - and *gasp* - how dare they succeed at it? Plus, this only started in force when they stood up to american jingoism during the first Bush presidency.

The sentiment is neither uniquely American nor a very recent phenomenon, in my experience at least. Perhaps it is a belated success of the German propaganda? More likely, people have become resentful of France over its politics and then turned to historical justifications for it.

Germany is not a good example; they took on all the world and lost - twice - while France had all the world on its side and. . . still lost, except for being saved by the Americans. Now, there is a disparity in strength between the two, but not enough to outweigh that popular image.

In a way, though, I think the popular opinion of various countries as we see it today was formed during and after WW2; the public sees the Germans as inhuman and conservative, though nothing is farther from the truth today, because of German politics of that time; it sees the French as cowards because they surrendered that time; &c. At that point, mass media and propaganda were both in their relative infancy and reached out to the people at large in a way unseen before; the images they carried went deep into the public consciousness.

Yes, that is true. France's foreign policy as such is quite france-centered. Like any country, they are using their influence to further their own aims. Every country does that. The French are more obnoxious about it, though, that is certainly true.

Indeed.

[Adrian Laguna]

I don't think this has been posted yet

McCain: "In the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."

-snip quote-

Wow. It's only those evil Russians who've been invading countries in the 21st century. Oh wait, that's only in McCain fantasy land, he forgot all about America invading Iraq and Afghanistan.

Bush is in on it too.

“With its actions in recent days Russia has damaged its credibility and its relations with the nations of the free world,” Mr. Bush said in his fourth stern statement on the conflict in five days, and the strongest to date. “Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”

From the NYTimes.

[[R_H]]

What will happen to those vehicles/munitions that were captured? Will some go into museums, and the rest put in service (T-72s, BMPs, BTRs etc)?

Probably hand them over to the South Ossetians. Take a few to Moscow to put in Kubinka.

Why not integrate them into the 58th Army? Especially the T-72 SIM-1s, which are better than the T-72B obr.1989g/obr.1990g(?) the 58th is using.

[Shroom Man 777]

The victorious Russian forces actually had older equipment than their vanquished Georgian foes? Wow!

[[R_H]]

The victorious Russian forces actually had older equipment than their vanquished Georgian foes? Wow!

It's the Caucasus, the most up to date equipment is in the East. And compared to the Georgians, the Russians and the Chechens are combat veterans. None of that guarding the border with Iran and running checkpoints
for them, unlike the Georgians that were in Iraq (did they even see any action?).

[Edi]

The dislike of the French in Europe is very much tied to the absolutely obnoxious way of politicking they practice and their insufferable sense of entitlement as a nation. That attitude, especially as it has manifested after World War 2, is what makes them so universally loathed among the people in Western countries.

As far as the Georgia/South Ossetia situation, just today Russian troops were caught on film fairly deep in Georgia proper when they deliberately destroyed an important railway bridge. That sort of shit doesn't happen without specific, direct orders, so it is blatantly clear that Russia is going to engage in looting and wholesale destruction of infrastructure as long as they stay in the country. So while Saakashvili is a perpetual liar, moron and fuckwit, Putin, Medvedev and the rest of the Kremlin should just fucking drop dead.

Another indication why Russia's small neighbors are right to fear it.

[Thanas]

Edi, do you have a link for the destruction of the bridge? Because that sounds very interesting.

[Shroom Man 777]

It was on CNN (and presumably BBC). I caught it after watching the Daily Show, International Edition.

[Elfdart]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

[[R_H]]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

"Quick, cut to a commercial break...they don't agree with us!"

Ceasefire news:

Georgia forced to accept a Russian occupation

President Saakashvili was forced to accept defeat yesterday as he signed a peace agreement that gives the Russian Army the right to patrol on Georgian soil.

In a critical amendment to the ceasefire drawn up by President Sarkozy of France, the Kremlin forced Mr Saakashvili to accept that Russian troops could control a buffer zone of Georgian territory up to 10km beyond the border of the breakaway region of South Ossetia.

Mr Saakashvili was humiliated further when the final text of the agreement, delivered personally by Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, removed a reference to Russian recognition of Georgia’s territorial integrity. It referred only to independence and sovereignty, a day after Ser-gei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said that the world could forget about Georgia’s territorial integrity.

After signing the peace agreement, an emotional Mr Saakashvili said defiantly: “A significant part of Georgian territory remains under foreign military occupation. Never, ever will Georgia reconcile itself with the occupation of even one square kilometre of its territory.”

The US and the European Union appear to have compelled him to accept just that, at least temporarily, in a deal that, in effect, legitimises Russian occupation of Georgia. The West had been insisting that the two sides withdraw their forces to the positions they occupied on August 6, before Georgian troops entered South Ossetia. Now, at Moscow’s insistence, Georgia has been forced to accept that Russian “peacekeepers” in South Ossetia have the right to patrol outside the breakaway region. The details were included in a letter signed by President Sarkozy that clarified Russia’s security powers.

Dr Rice said that the clarifications were meant to protect Georgian interests. US officials argued that the wording of the original document was too vague over the extent of Russia’s freedom to roam on Georgian soil in “peacekeeping” operations. “With the signing of this accord, all Russian troops, and any paramilitary and irregular troops that entered with them, must leave immediately,” she said.

However, the revised document states that Russian peacekeepers who were in South Ossetia before the war started could stay and extend their patrols temporarily for up to 10km (6.2 miles) into Georgia.

Officials say that these additional powers would expire as soon as a team of international monitors arrived to observe the ceasefire. However, President Medvedev reinforced Russia’s diplomatic supremacy in a meeting with Angela Merkel, the German Chancellor, at his residence in the Black Sea resort of Sochi, close to Georgia’s other breakaway region of Abkhazia.

He rejected her insistence that Georgia’s territorial integrity was a “basic point” for any peace settlement in the Caucasus. In a clear signal that the Kremlin is preparing to recognise Abkhazia and South Ossetia’s independence, he reclaimed Russia’s right to be the sole arbiter of the region’s future shape. “If someone continues to attack our citizens, our peacekeepers, then of course we will answer just as we did,” Mr Medvedev said.

“Russia, as guarantor of security in the Caucasus and the region, will make the decision which unambiguously supports the will of these two Caucasus peoples.”

Mr Saakashvili was locked in five hours of talks with Dr Rice at his presidential palace in Tbilisi. In a sign that he was finding the deal hard to accept, their joint press conference was delayed for more than 90 minutes.

Mr Saakashvili railed against the West for failing to pay attention to the emerging Russian threat and for not extending support to Georgia’s application for Nato membership in April.

“Unfortunately, today we are looking evil directly in the eye. And today this evil is very dangerous for everybody – not only for us,” he said. “Let us write the next chapter together.”

Mr Saakashvili said Nato’s rejection of Georgia had encouraged the Kremlin to begin a military build-up, believing that the West lacked the will to respond. He said: “We told the world this is about starting an invasion. We screamed to the world, ‘stop it’.”

Mr Sarkozy said that Georgia’s signature on the ceasefire accord cleared the way for a resolution to end the conflict at the United Nations Security Council “and the definition of an international mechanism which will be charged with overseeing the implementation of the agreement on the ground”, although one Western diplomat predicted that Russian “hard bargaining” over references to Georgia’s territorial integrity would prevent the signing of a resolution this weekend.

Mr Sarkozy also said that the ceasefire created conditions for the immediate withdrawal of Russian forces to the positions they held before the conflict broke out. Russia demonstrated its determination to move its forces around at will when a military convoy advanced to within 55km of Tbilisi yesterday while Dr Rice was visiting.

Seventeen armoured personnel carriers and about 200 soldiers moved along the main highway from the city of Gori, which remains occupied by Russian forces despite pledges to leave, before stopping in the village of Igoeti. Their mission was unclear, though they were joined for a time by three Russian combat helicopters.

[Darth Hoth]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

Wow. I can imagine they must have lied themselves blue to be allowed that interview in the first place. Stupid, Fox, stupid to fall for that. Nobody notice that they flew out through RUSSIA?

[ray245]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

Wow. I can imagine they must have lied themselves blue to be allowed that interview in the first place. Stupid, Fox, stupid to fall for that. Nobody notice that they flew out through RUSSIA?

You expect fox news to be that SMART?

[Darth Wong]

I think a lot of the people in FOXNews are so thoroughly immersed in their own bullshit that they honestly think it's true. So it wouldn't have occurred to them that a live eyewitness from South Ossetia might contradict their propaganda.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

I wonder which idiot in the spin team made such a ... stupendous mistake!

[Darth Wong]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

I wonder which idiot in the spin team made such a ... stupendous mistake!

The girl lives in California. This means she's an American, and every FOXNews employee knows that all real Americans agree with FOXNews! Small wonder they weren't expecting anything different. They probably vetted her by asking the aunt if she supports abortion.

[Shroom Man 777]

I love how the West is letting Georgia go fuck itself while folks like Merkel are going "Georgia can join NATO" and then doing a Borat "...NOT!"


Support the (Russian) Troops!

*Waves the Red, Yellow, and Hammer/Sickle*

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The girl lives in California. This means she's an American, and every FOXNews employee knows that all real Americans agree with FOXNews! Small wonder they weren't expecting anything different. They probably vetted her by asking the aunt if she supports abortion.

Well, if they happen to be Catholics or E. Orthodox Catholics, yeah they probably would.

[Fire Fly]

Is there a reason why the West has suddenly forgotten that Georgia started this in the first place? Its like we purposely want Russia to be the bad guy. And one wonders why the Russians act paranoid at times.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Bah. I posted that video pages back.

[Darth Hoth]

Is there a reason why the West has suddenly forgotten that Georgia started this in the first place? Its like we purposely want Russia to be the bad guy. And one wonders why the Russians act paranoid at times.

They did nothing untowards, though, as it was their sovereign soil they fired upon. The Russian reaction is not "understandable", but blatant power playing, so I find it quite agreeable that people at least pretend to be concerned.

[Darth Hoth]

Wanna see Faux News get punked? They had a 12-year-old girl on to talk about those nasty evil Russians. However...

(From Daily Kos/ YouTube)

Fixed Noise's agitprop blew up in Shepherd Smith's face like a trick cigar!

Wow. I can imagine they must have lied themselves blue to be allowed that interview in the first place. Stupid, Fox, stupid to fall for that. Nobody notice that they flew out through RUSSIA?

You expect fox news to be that SMART?

I am the guy who started a thread to ask who they were a few months back. I do not have an American's first-hand experience with their apparent stupidity.