New media push to show Russia as the bad guy.

Georgia isn't a democracy at all. Anyone who believes that is simply uninformed and just regurgitating whatever sound bites they heard on the news. Saakashvili is a dictator and was brought to power by a US-engineered coup during the 2003 Rose Revolution. This was financed by the US State Department, the CIA, and the George Soros Foundations. Saakashvili is nothing more than an agent of the US-NATO establshment from which he takes his orders. Since the man has come to power, Georgian people have been subject to torture, unlawful imprisonment and wide-scale arrests. Yet the media portrays him as a good guy who wants nothing more than peace for his people. This of course is not a surprise, however, when you come to understand he's nothing more than a puppet for the Anglo-American elites he was placed into power to do the bidding of.

Most people have been trained to take sides in almost everything. I am not taking the side of either of the two, because they are both bad and both are being used as pawns by the globalists to achieve a certain outcome. However, it is imperative that people wake up and understand that there is a reason why the US is openly backing Georgia and has been running military operations with the Georgians going back many years. At the same time, the establishment-controlled media can say no bad about Georgia as they demonize Putin.

This entire thing was engineered by the US and NATO, and carried out through Georgia. And there is obviously a reason for it that the people are not being told about.

Wake up, folks.

 

Yes you should all look up the Rose Revolution and this democratic figurehead, the US seems to love at the moment.

 

If he is a puppet, then he is also a mouthpeice..
I was repeating what the mouthpiece had said.
Which flew in the face of what you are saying and what gardener had said.
I heard what all the mouthpieces (including the US UK and French) were saying yesterday.
Both the Georgian and Russian mouthpieces were blaming each other for provocation.
I tended to believe the Georgian mouthpiece because he said that Russian action was too quick and too well planned.
It seemed like a well oiled plan.
I'm not "taking sides" though.

Regardless of who you believe "started it" - today:

Georgia and Russia agree on truce:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7557457.stm

I'm not going to counter the other posts you have made because they are the same peices re-arranged to fit this particular issue. It would be slightly pointless to attempt to alter your mind.

Torture:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/07/14/georgi11472.htm

 

Quick and well oiled yet you give no mention of the little war games played out in Georgia just last month with US and Israel support. You don't think these preparations were being watched by Russia? They would be totally inept if they had not been aware of them. What was inept was Georgia's innitiation of armed force and murder. This was orchestrated.

http://aftermathnews.wordpress.com/2008/07/16/us-and-georgia-play-war-games-under-russias-nose/

Which is exactly what happened.

 

Here's a link to the cached copy of a report on MSNBC, which has now been taken down from their site. I find that a little telling as to who controlls their reporting.

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cach...war+games+in+georgia&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=us

Just in case you wanted to discredit my previous link.

 

And of course Russia would be irritated if Georgia was joinin' Nato. Communists are just like democrats in the fact that they want as many countries to go to their shall we say "governmental policies" as possible. I stand with odon to the point that its a bit far fetched. Too many countries agreed in too many areas man.

 

Perhaps because I do not think it had anything to do with the current situation and what Russia and Georgia have been upto in the last week. That is part of your conspiracy not mine.

Did you hear the press conference the day before I posted that post...?
I was saying, I believed what President Saakashvili was saying, over what I was hearing from the Russian mouthpiece.

He talked of atleast a years planning, given the speed of the reaction to Georgia's actions and then the following activities (by Russia).

You have chosen to take a side on this, and chosen to spin it to your POV. No problem. But, talking about not mentioning something, how come I have not heard you talking about the military operations Russia has been carrying out for the past week?
In full view of the worlds media.

I know what Russia said there reasoning was, it does not really excuse what they have been doing for the past week, does it?
They have been all over Georgia.
That does seem to suggest they were waiting for an excuse to go in and roll out their plans, that they could have been planning for the last year.

Take a look at the Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)
in your link. And think about how much Russia has been doing in the last week.

 

Could it be true that Russia is threatening to attack Poland over the issue of a missle defense shield being placed there by The US?

This looks like Russia is the agressor.

What happened to the principal of nations being allowed to develop weapons of deterence like Iran's weapons od deterence.

 

n

 

The conflict is certainly redolent of pathos, and it denotes an end to Russia’s quiescence, which has prevailed for the last 16 or so years. Thus, many — in both the West and East — are beginning to espouse the germinal theory that it will conquer many of its resource-rich neighbors, especially the ex-Soviet ones, in bid for supreme economic power. That makes sense as modern warfare now turns more heavily on the wheels of industry than it does on mass armies, or nuclear missiles.

Notwithstanding its government, which is hardly a sublime entity, with many bureaucrats who cast a blind eye in the face of corruption and extol the use of torture, Georgia is better off than it was during its 7 decades of Soviet/Russian rule, and is democratic, to a certain point. Maybe they have, indeed, courted the United States — but can we blame them? Under the auspices of the communist dogma, the Russian-backed puppets, who dominated Georgia’s political scene during that epoch, committed grotesque enormities. When they finally left — that is, when the Soviet Union finally fell, crumbling under the weight of its own economic debauchery — Georgians were emaciated through perennial famine; driven to reticence through fear of the KGB, whose love and employment of brutality was legendary; and poor through endless exploitation. Can we thus excoriate them for seeking the support of the West?

 

You guys wish to wage war with Russia, be prepared to do it for decades. You think your economies can handle it? All I heard the Georgian President decrying today was the destruction of his stadium for rock concerts. I found it a bit trivial.

 

No relevance, how can you be so myopic?

What the American advisors didn't foresee a Russian reaction to Georgian agression? Seems vaguely reminiscient of our lack of foresight with an Iraqi insurgency, shit exmilitary brought it up at the peace rallies before the war was started. Smart people knew.

Russia did exactly what I would have expected them to do. They're not a second class world power, they shouldn't be underestimated, especially when it concerns territories within their purview.

If there had not been provocation this would not have been necessary. The Georgian President unless he's totally uneducated in local history should have known the response would be fast and it would be powerful.

I read the propaganda provoked hatred, and I see us rushing into another long term conflict based on rhetoric and marketing catch phrases and nothing else, something we will regret when we have to pay for it and have a chance to look at the facts in the light of day.

I was watching the news and reading reports well in advance of the new media hysteria against Russia. I have no doubts how this started, and how it could possibly be played out. I didn't have to wait for the media blitz to take a position of what was in play. And it wasn't a defence of democracy.

 

gardener:

Not agreeing with you is not myopic, it is just a fact. I did not think the "wargames" had anything to do with the current situation.

2002:

In addition, the United States has a military-to-military relationship with the Republic of Georgia, which has recently been enhanced in that we have, as you know, a number of trainers that have arrived very recently in Georgia. I think there are some 26 people there at the present time. And the first phase of the program will take it up to something in the neighborhood of 75 U.S. trainers to train the national staff, and then the second phase will go up to, I believe, 150 total trainers who will be involved with tactical training of four battalions.
I should add that the effort that we're engaged in with Georgia is something that is not a U.S.-only activity. We have the Turkish government armed forces have trainers in there, and Germany has been cooperative. Recently, there was a donors conference, and some 15 countries, many of which have offered to participate in various ways to assist the Republic of Georgia and their armed forces and the minister of defense in developing a better anti-terrorist capability for their armed forces.

http://www.defenselink.mil/transcripts/transcript.aspx?transcriptid=3430

A unique military training program is weaving a mosaic of understanding and teamwork for future coalition efforts in Iraq while boosting security in the Caucasus, an integral part of the former Soviet Union.

Soldiers of the Georgian 23rd Light Infantry Battalion and Marines assigned to the U.S. European Command initiative Georgian Sustainment and Stability Operations Program march during a 10-kilometer conditioning hike recently in Georgia, a former Soviet republic. The hike builds the soldiers physically and provides an opportunity for the Georgian soldiers to exercise small unit leadership. EUCOM is conducting, with Marine Corps Forces Europe as the lead trainers, the program to prepare two battalions of Georgian soldiers for deployment to Iraq.

The $64 million Georgia Sustainment and Stability Operations Program, known as GSSOP and administered by U.S. European Command, recently began a 15-month run and is the answer to Georgia's commitment to deploy troops to support Operation Iraqi Freedom. Two battalions of Georgian soldiers are receiving training that includes light infantry tactics; brigade-level engineer, logistics, reconnaissance and signal skills; and command and control training at the brigade level and above.

http://www.defenselink.mil/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=16284

So, are you suggesting Turkey, Germany and upto 15 other countries have been quietly training up Georgia for this, over the last 6 years?

Yes very vague. Almost infowar vague.
It is not the reaction, it is the continueing activity.
It may not have been forseen.
You are almost saying: Why did Goergia et al not forsee a widespread military operation, encompassing a multitude of differing targets and the killing of several hundred people.
Are you still suggesting this was a quick response to Georgia's action?
Maybe the undertones of this conflict have given Russia time to think about a multitude of differing scenarios.
So their quick response is understandable.
But, even so it does all seem rather convinient.
Plus, this was my first reaction to hearing what all the mouthpieces were saying.
Not a continueing thought I have.

Nobody with half a brain underestimates them.
You really could forsee a widespread military push, and heavy civilian casualties at the hands of the Russians...?

Not really answering my point.
Russia has been doing more than protecting peacekeepers and such.
They have been bombing the shit out of Georgia...making sure any future plans Georgia may have had never come to pass.
That is why I think it was pre-planned and done at the slightest provocation.

You can't brush off what Russia has been doing.
Pictures are pictures.
Deny the rhetoric all you like.
Please don't deny pictures.

Please do tell.

 

Building a mosaic of support in the Caucases (Wonder how much they had to pay for that little marketting catch phrase?) with only a cadre of 26 advisors. You must be really gullible. The Council on Foreign Relations is just another reinacarnation of the PNAC, and all of this has been orchestrated for years. This is just their last ditch effort to acheive their agenda before Bush and Cheney leave office.

15 countries, which are they? Remember the huge number of coalition supporting countries, where are their soldiers today in Iraq? How much aid was promised to their countries for that support by the US paid for by US taxpayers? Is our support of Georgia against Russia payment for 2000 troops in Iraq, if so I think we overpaid. (Approximately $124,000,000.00 so far.)

Does the US abide by the Geneva Conventions, why should Russia think Georgia is going to play by the rules?

You know the GSSOP is just the same sort of slop as the SPP/Security Prosperity Partnership. Each have pleasant enough sounding titles, but what do either actually accomplish for the common man. It was designed by corporate heads and it only considers the corporate bottomlines, not the well being of societies or civilians or Georgia wouldn't have been urged into this confrontation.


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

If the first part of the SSOP cost 60 million how much has it cost the US totally? The GTEP cost us 64 million. Any idea how much our support will cost now? Does McCain or Obama have the figure, how but Condi does she know. How much of a role has Blackwater had?

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

 

I find this eye opening:

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/asection/la-fg-iraq10-2008aug10,0,6612369.story

2000 troops is the third largest contingent of all those countries that backed our invasion? How many troops did all those other support countries send?

And you are touting support of 15 countries as awe inspiring? What happenned to that huge coalition of the willing in Iraq?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/2870487.stm

http://www.iraqwarveterans.org/coalition.htm

How much did we have to pay each of them?

 

Yes, it is the eptimome of PR speak. I agree

You must have missed: And the first phase of the program will take it up to something in the neighborhood of 75 U.S. trainers to train the national staff, and then the second phase will go up to, I believe, 150 total trainers who will be involved with tactical training of four battalions.

Why?

How can it be a reincarnation when:
The Council on Foreign Relations was founded in 1921.
Please point out to me documents from them (not bullshit articles grasped from infowars) in the public domain that illicit the notion this group have an "agenda".
You tell me that "agenda".
Then link up that with the "agenda" in relation to Georgia
(given you say "I have no doubts how this started, and how it could possibly be played out").

Please do not say: Money Power Oil...

As that is the most vague and generalised "agenda" you could ever say.
It does not mean you know of any "agenda" or can recount the spider web of this "agenda".
You simply parrot what loonies say, regardless of the issues the circumstances and the players.

You may like to drop in:
The Georgia Foundation for Strategic and International Studies.
http://www.gfsis.org/pub/eng/
When having these discusions, in the future.
I'm sure CFR are in cohoots with them

You may find that you won't find anything more than inferences such as you are making.
Churned out by groups/people; that are all mixed up in the head and ready and willing to drop the groups name into as many debates as possible.
If I am being unfair, please do not take offence...
I'm not expecting you to explain "The CFR agenda" everytime you mention them.
But, once would be nice.

I'm not quite sure.
I'm assuming he was talking about the Tokyo conference 2002
http://www.mofa.go.jp/region/middle_e/afghanistan/min0201/

2008 withdrawals:

Georgia - Following the outbreak of war between Georgia and Russia on August 8, 2008, Mikheil Saakashvili said that Georgia was pulling its entire 2,000-strong contingent of troops from Iraq. During the 10th and 11th of August the US Air Force airlifted the whole contigent out of Iraq. Georgia had 2,000 troops deployed near the Iranian border as of October 8, 2007. Politicians had already stated that the contingent would be reduced to 300 in summer 2008. Georgia's contribution to the Coalition originally consisted of 300 special forces troops under U.S. command in Baqouba, who guarded two bridges as well as American Forward Operating Bases 'Caldwell', 'Warhorse' and 'Gabe'. 550 more troops were deployed in June 2005 for UNAMI, although these were placed under U.S. command on a dangerous 'Middle Ring Security' mission in the Green Zone. On March 9, 2007, Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili announced his plans to increase total Georgian troop strength in Iraq to 2000, by sending an extra 1,200 troops and moving those already in Iraq to join the new unit. As of July 2008, five Georgian soldiers had died in Iraq (one in a vehicle accident, one committed suicide, while three died in combat) and 19 were wounded.

2007 withdrawals

• Slovakia - On January 27, 2007, Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico announced that all but 11 of the 110 Slovak troops (primarily engaged in destroying ordnance) operating under the US-led Coalition had been transferred from Diwaniya in Iraq to Kuwait. They arrived home the following month. The remaining troops were sent to perform liaison duties at the Multinational Forces HQ in Baghdad: nine were withdrawn in stages, while the last two returned by the end of the year. 4 Slovak soldiers were killed by mortars and roadside bombs during their deployment in Iraq.
• Lithuania - The remaining 50 members of the Lithuanian contingent arrived home on August 9, 2007. Lithuania originally deployed 120 troops to Iraq, approximately 50 under Polish command near Hillah (designation: LITDET), where they guarded Camp Echo; and an equal number under Danish command near Basra (designation: LITCON), where they conducted joint patrols with the Danish troops.The remainder served at various command centers throughout the country. The unit in the Polish sector was withdrawn during the course of 2006. Nine Lithuanian soldiers remain in Iraq under NTM-I.

2006 withdrawals

• Italy - On September 21, 2006, Italian forces handed over Dhi Qar province in southern Iraq to newly-trained Iraqi security forces, thus ending their military mission: "The Italian contingent is going back. The mission is accomplished — the security of the province is in your hands", Minister of Defence Arturo Parisi said to Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki.About a month earlier, on August 23, the Italian contingent stood at 1,600 troops. The 'Garibaldi Brigade' served its final four month tour of duty between May and September 2006, and included mechanized infantry, helicopters and Carabinieri in South Central Iraq, based around Nasiriyah. The original contingent consisted of about 3,200 troops, but on July 9, 2005, former PM Berlusconi announced that Italian soldiers would gradually be withdrawn in groups of 300. New Prime Minister Romano Prodi had pledged to withdraw the troops in his first speech to the senate and called the war "a grave mistake that has complicated rather than solved the problem of security". Shortly after, on May 26, 2006, Italian foreign minister Massimo D'Alema announced that the Italian forces would be reduced from 1,800 to 1,600 by June. On June 8, he said Italy's military presence in Iraq would end before 2007.The Military of Italy have lost 34 soldiers in Iraq:

• twentyfive were hostile deaths:

1. two in separate engagements,
2. six in various roadside bombings,
3. seventeen in a late 2003 suicide bombing on the Italian HQ in Nasiriyah (which also killed at least two Italian civilians),

• eight were accidents
• and one, a ranking major general, was a controversial friendly fire incident.

• Japan - See: Japanese Iraq Reconstruction and Support Group

• Norway - 140 of 150 troops (engineers and mine clearers) withdrawn on June 30, 2004 citing growing domestic opposition and the need for the troops elsewhere; the 10 remaining liaison officers had been withdrawn by August 2006. The Bondevik II government insists the troops were never part of the invasion force, citing a UN humanitarian mandate. This does not seem to have come to the attention of the international community, as Al-Qaeda has included Norway in videotaped threats on at least two occasions, and U.S. organizations have included Norway on their lists of participating nations. The actual status of Norwegian engineering and administrative personnel past and present is still a matter of domestic controversy, in part because troops serving in a war zone are entitled to better pay.

2005 withdrawals

• Portugal - had 128 military policemen under Italian command (South East Iraq). Troops were withdrawn on February 10, 2005, two days ahead of schedule.

• Netherlands - An independent contingent of 1,345 troops (including 650 Dutch Marines, three or four Chinook helicopters, a military police unit, a logistics team, a commando squad, a field hospital and Royal Netherlands Air Force AH-64 attack helicopters) was deployed to Iraq in 2003, based in Samawah (Southern Iraq). On June 1, 2004, the Dutch government renewed their stay through 2005. The Algemeen Dagblad reported on October 21, 2004, that the Netherlands would pull its troops out of Iraq in March 2005, which it did, leaving half a dozen liaison officers until late 2005. The Dutch Government reportedly turned down an Iraqi Government request to extend the Dutch contingent for another year. The Netherlands lost 2 soldiers in separate attacks.

2004 withdrawals

• Nicaragua - 230 troops left in February 2004, no replacement, attributed to financial reasons. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command.

• Spain - had 1,300 troops (mostly assigned to policing duties) in Najaf and commanded the troops of Honduras, El Salvador, the Dominican Republic, and of Nicaragua. Newly elected Prime Minister José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero fulfilled one of his campaign pledges and declared the end of the mission on April 28, 2004 with the withdrawal of the last 260 troops. While in Iraq, Spain lost 11 military personnel: ten killed in insurgent attacks and one in an accident. Already during the mandate of the previous pro-invasion executive, Spanish permanent representative Inocencio Arias raised questions about the legitimacy of the Iraq war.

• Honduras - 368 troops withdrawn by the end of May 2004 along with Spain's contingent, citing that the troops were sent there for reconstruction, not combat. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command (South East Iraq).

• Dominican Republic - 302 troops withdrawn by the end of May 2004, shortly after Spain and Honduras withdrew their contingents, citing growing domestic opposition and the fall from power of PRD candidate Hipolito Mejia and the election of center-left PLD candidate Leonel Fernandez to the presidency in 2004. Dominican troops were under constant mortar attacks but suffered no casualties. While in Iraq, the troops were under Spanish command (South East Iraq).

• Philippines - 60 medics, engineers and other troops were withdrawn on July 14, 2004 in response to the kidnapping of a truck driver. When the hostage takers' demands were met (Filipino troops out of Iraq), the hostage was released. While in Iraq, the troops were under Polish command (Central South Iraq). During that time, several Filipino soldiers were wounded in an insurgent attack, although none died.

• Thailand - Withdrawal of the last 100 troops from Thailand's 423-strong humanitarian contingent was completed on September 10, 2004, in accordance with Thailand's mandate in Iraq, which expired in September. Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra had previously announced an early withdrawal if the situation became too dangerous. Thailand lost 2 soldiers in Iraq in an insurgent attack.

• Hungary - Hungary's contingent of 300 transportation troops had begun arriving home in Budapest from Iraq on December 22, 2004, reported by the AFP. All of Hungary's troops were reported by the Defence Ministry to have left Iraq by the end of that day. While in Iraq, one Hungarian soldier was killed in an insurgent attack.

• New Zealand - Two rotations of 61 military engineers, known as Task Force Rake, operated in Iraq from September 26, 2003 to September 25, 2004.[89][90] They were deployed to undertake humanitarian and reconstruction tasks consistent with UN Security Council Resolution 1483; they were not part of the invading force. While in Iraq the unit was under British command (South East Iraq) and was based in Basra.

• Iceland - Iceland had 2 Explosive Ordnance Disposal experts, a medical advisor, and some transport experts assigned to the Danish unit immediately after the occupation began; they have since been withdrawn.

Well, you did ask.

I have no idea. Do tell.

What has the Geneva convention go to do with this?
Why are you at such pains not to say what Russia has done and is doing?

When you say:
But what do either actually accomplish for the common man.

Do you really mean:
But what do either actually accomplish for the common American.

? If so, then, not much.

In other words: Money Power Oil...

I had a strange feeling you would say that.

 

No.
Two differnt groups of countries.
Some may overlap.
What happened to them: See above for those sending troops.
I'm sure I can find out about the rest if you really wish to know and were not being rhetorical.

 

Personally I would have quit why you were ahead (not edited your post)

I don't care.

I don't care.

I don't care.

?

None.

 

So basically the coalition of the willing has evaporated. We have/had more private contractors paid for by US taxpayers in Iraq than the coalition ever provided. So throwing the number of supporting foreign countries out there like it shows huge societal support for any issue just doesn't cut it.

I am fully aware of when the CFR started, perhaps reincarnated was a bad choice of terms. I should have said they packed up their PNAC tents and PR and crawled back into their hole.

If you don't care about how much the taxpayer is paying on training foreign armies, or what our political leaders know of current affairs I wonder just what you do care about.

I brought up the Geneva conventions because you are proposing the Russian's used undue force. In the past conflicts were enacted following certain rules. The US currently sees no need to follow any laws of engagement, why should others be held to a higher standard?