Russian attack on country of Georgia
 

Google has blocked all the map features of the country of Georgia which is currently under attack by the Ruskies. The terrain feature still works there are just no map features.

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&hl=e...272217&t=h&z=7

A little history of the conflict:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle4498709.ece

The conflict is front page news here, but the google angle is new to me, thanks.

But why? Do they think the Russians will be helpless without Google mapping? Also, the aerial photographs are still there...

I was wondering if they were doing the Russians a favor by taking down the mapping for the Georgian's or if they were doing a favor to the Georgian's by taking it down so the Russians couldn't use it. Maybe they are claming neutrality and taking it down so no one can say that it was avaiable for use on line by either side.

I think that, were I a citizen of a country that relied on Google Maps for its military interventions, I would be very worried.

No doubt, given that, it must not be as an aid to the Russians. But there is a huge portion of the fighting force that is irregular, so it still may be a tool to some.

Maybe they're simply worried about the accuracy. If Google Maps still show a town where there is now a rubble filled crater it might make people wary of trusting it in future.

maybe they just don't want an IOTD of a guy falling off his bicycle while he is distracted by a bomb blast.

How current is that info? I can't believe that anyone on either side is using Google map data for anything.

Depends on who. Any data is better then no data.

Bad data is better than no data?

Is that your final answer?

If it's useful it's not bad data.

Hmm, does bad data get spanked?

It's front page news here too.

This could turn out very badly.

Some very interesting terrain. Looks like a difficult place to fight.

http://gigigarmendia.files.wordpress...eorgia-map.jpg

http://www.sakartvelopodcast.org/images/geomap.gif

The disputed region in gray, of South Ossetia.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...ssetia-map.png

This could be the real goal of the Russian invasion. Map of the Baku-Supsa and Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Pipelines throught the nation of Georgia


http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._Pipelines.gif

This is getting worse by the minute. WTF people???

Classic, the quick version, it is for the region a big ball of wax. Stalin "gave" Ossetia and Abkhazi two small regions or "countries" to Georgia in the early part of this century. Stalin was originally from Georgia. Fast forward to 1991. Soviet Union falls, a loose federation of 15 different countries from the Baltic's down around to Kazakhstan forms. Georgia is one of these countries. The Ossetians and Abkhazi have wanted to be their own sovereign country, or to be absorbed back into Russia since 91, and there have been separatist issues and rebellion this whole time, with "peacekeeping" forces from Russia on the ground since 91.

Georgia finally tipped the scale in this one, killed a Russian soldier, and pissed of the Russian Bear. In short, and oversimplified maybe, but true. As far as warfare for the region goes....they are a little more morally flexible then us pansies in the west perhaps.

The early part of this century?

Good pictures.
http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/200...h_ossetia.html

Russia's invasion of Georgia is no worse than America's invasion of Iraq. In fact, America's illegal invasion of Iraq is worse. Russia says people in Ossetia are being oppressed and have suffered through atrocities, (kind of like the people of Iraq) so the big military rolls in and kills everyone.

I would be willing to bet the same people who support the war in Iraq are against the actions of Russia when they do something very similar.

Radar, saying our trying to win the GWOT in Iraq as well as elsewhere is illegal has never had the least basis in fact, and I tire of how desperately you try to lie about it. Do you take us for being as bad at foreign policy as yourself, or what?

Congress said to the President, "As CINC, fly at 'em and try and win." That is what the resolution to use military force was, Radar, as is plain to everyone except you and a collection of far-left fascists who desperately want America, and democratic humanity of which we are the spearhead, to lose that their totalitarian dreams may be realized.

You're exceedingly ill-advised to adopt the views of far-left fascists, whose lack of societal success is absolute, whose future is all in the past, and whose dickheadedness was exceeded only by that of the Communists. In other words, no example to follow, no philosophy to adhere to, unless you have but the intellect of a two-year-old bent on world domination if only he could figure out how it was spelled.

Yet it is an example you follow. I call that abominably bad libertarianism -- to insist that totalitarians be left alone rather than be replaced with something more nearly libertarian. What bollocks. Where is your desire to destroy totalitarianism, totalitarians, and tyrants?

It's been cut off, with several other important brain and body parts, it would seem.

A libertarian needs a liberationist mindset to amount to anything.

I don't know whether it's right or wrong for Russia to be invading Georgia or not. I don't really know much more than the basics which is pretty much what Joe shared with us.

I do feel very strongly that if the US insists on injecting themselves in the situation, it's going to end in tears. A river of them.

What I think is most interesting is the timing of the invasion. Who stands to gain by either encouraging or deciding to this invasion? When the eyes of the world are on China, I wonder.

I guess mostly China is probably happy people are talking about some other arseholes instead of Tibet for a while.

Sheesh, what year am I in???? Yep good catch. Sorry. Last century.

Great pics Bruce. Thanks.

If you want an accurate look of the current terrain google maps isn't the place to go. At least in my town there are some landmarks on there that are well over a year old so I don't think it is very up to date. Very cool pics however.

I'm drawing the line at Alabama.

They can have Alabama and while they're at it take Arkansas off our hands too.

As usual UG is completely wrong. The President is not commander in chief until called into service by a formal declaration of war. Congress may only make a formal declaration of war when it is in the common defense of Americans. Congress is not allowed to "authorize" the president to make war. They are given no such power.

The war in Iraq is illegal and I'll continue to make that factual statement no matter how much you dislike it.

Libertarianism can not be spread at the point of a gun and your beliefs that it can are directly in contradiction to the words of our founders, and every libertarian author who has ever existed.

Id say thats a definite. Now that they have developed some of their old muscle back, they want to take control of the oil that goes to Europe. The US is in no position to do anything about it. Its not like we can threaten them with anything but talk.

And anyway...The US did do something very similar..in Iraq. Not that that very expensive gambit is going to pay off for us...the peak oil and current credit crisis is going to end up doing us serious harm.

One problem and on this one point I concede to Urbane. Since Washington had the Navy attack the Barbary pirates off what's now Libya, just about every US president unilaterally engaged its troops in international conflicts, some that are virtually undeclared wars. Radar, you will have to condemn the whole lot of US presidents who had to contend with a usually indecisive Congress.

What is McCain going to attack Russia with? His false teeth? The only other way is nuke, but you don't think that Mr. 'bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran' would do it, would he?

Jefferson

Radar, is it not crashingly obvious that libertarianism will not occur in the places that need it most until the human obstacles to it that will present themselves are removed? I do not expect all the human obstacles to survive the removal process, nor am I worried at the prospect. Conversions from bad ways to good ways are all the stronger if the stubbornest adherents to the bad ways have gotten killed. Provides motivation for the more pragmatic-minded, don't you know. Once they discover it works, then the conversion really sticks.

The writers you evoke clearly haven't the solution. It's time for new ideas. If, that is, one actually wants libertarianism to go forward. Pacifism, radar, fits someone of your aggressive, autocratic disposition like pants on a cow. You're not being true to your nature.

If you think you have Constitutional proof for your contention, you will quote the relevant passage. If you have not the proof, you will bluster loudly to cover up your fault.

Foreign policy is the common defense of Americans, as sensible people understand -- and you will deny, not from intellectual clarity but from pigheadedness. Your contorted reading of the Constitution convinces you, perhaps -- you alone; and really, it shouldn't. Your notions of how the nation should interact with other nations work only in the complete absence of other nations. The Constitution, after all, says nothing about how foreign policy shall be conducted... well, I'm not going to go down so silly a road. I'm righter than you are, but you haven't the character to admit it, being crippled and sickened and blocked, aye constipated, by your narcissism. It prevents you from learning, whereas I learn all the time, particularly on foreign policy. You misuse your ego, valuing it too much. You cannot cope with a knowledgeable challenger. Me, I am not so struck by my own intellectual significance, and can thus exercise better character, more honesty, and clearer, more real thinking.

The Constitution has never forbid ordering the troops into action: the precedent of 150 shooting wars, and five declarations of war, say Radar is stone wrong and always will be stone wrong so long as he insists on his way. Phooey! The Executive Branch has the responsibility to conduct the nation's foreign policy, and from time to time that means dealing with nasty trouble. Barbary pirates. Injuns. Allies getting invaded by other powers.

Nor do our foes deserve the win here: look at their nature -- Non-Integrating Gap types, undemocracies, poverty-makers through trying to cut off globalization (for reasons never anything but specious), dictators and would-be dictators, illiberal abusers of women... the list could get longer, but these should do. All that crap should be wiped away, and those resisting that change should be denied the further power of resistance, and permanently -- of course. This is liberationism, down at the nitty gritty. Radar chokes on it -- he doesn't want the liberation, nor logically enough the libertarianism (or a nearer approach to it) that naturally follows on, and which even more naturally allows a people to prosper. Radar doesn't get it, and clearly doesn't want to get it. I certainly don't want anything to do with his approach in consequence, for it doesn't work and it does nothing at all.

Mentioning the Barbary Pirates does nothing to bolster your position. The Constitution allows the use of the military to protect American ships from pirates. It does not allow the federal government to use the military to carry out regime change, or nation building, or humanitarian aid, or starting unprovoked, non-defensive, unwarranted wars.

I do condemn every president who has made war without a declaration of war. Presidents have zero authority to make war; only Congress may do that, and then only when it is in America's defense, and then only when a formal declaration of war has been made.

UG graces us with another laughably stupid and non-libertarian rant.

My reading of the Constitution is exactly as it was written by our founders and my positions are the same as theirs. Stop using "foreign policy" as a euphemism for "starting unprovoked and unconstitutional wars". War is not foreign policy. War is what happens when foreign policy fails. I've already given irrefutable proof that this war is unconstitutional, you're just too dim witted and thickheaded to admit that this is what they Constitution says.

Libertarian is spread by example, not by force. The initiation of force (especially for political gain) is the exact opposite of libertarianism.


The Constitution PROHIBITS the federal government from taking part in or legislating anything that isn't within the Constitution. It grants ONLY congress the power to make war. It says the president BECOMES the commander in chief WHEN CALLED UPON by a declaration of war. It defines and limits the role of our military as being solely for the common DEFENSE of America.

I've got more character, intelligence, and backbone than UG will ever have. He refers to himself as a "knowledgeable challenger". He is neither knowledgeable, nor a challenger. He's a stupid, gutless, filthy, little weasel who keeps trying to rewrite history and re-define the English language to his own liking.

He mentions that the Constitution hasn't forbid these illegal actions as though that proves them to be legitimate. That's like a murderer saying, "Of course murder is legal. I got away with it."

He accuses me of being a pacifist when I am not. I am a military non-interventionist. But I am not a pacifist. I am all for using our military to defend America. That is its intended purpose and the only valid use of it.


I've cited the Constitution and given dozens and dozens of quotes from our founders and prominent libertarians proving that UGs positions are not Constitutional, not libertarian, and certainly not correct. Here's another quote you might like...

Isn't this a thread about the Russian/Georgian conflict now underway in the Caucuses? Perhaps we could not derail another thread with arguments that have been put forth on numerous other threads.

I for one am not happy with the the western press and our governments portrayal of Russia in this mess. Georgia is not the good guy when it comes to South Ossetia. In fact if you called a South Ossetian a "Georgian" in a bar you might have to defend yourself.

Headlines on PRAVDA.Ru
 

Victims of the Georgian aggression.

Russia urges Georgia to pledge not to use force.

Russia mourns victims of Georgian aggression.

War in South Ossetia may trigger new outburst of US-Russian rivalry.

War in South Ossetia reflects profound deficits in US policy.

Western media blatantly misinterpret conflict in South Ossetia.

Stratfor acknowledges Russia defeated US, not Georgian army in South Ossetia.

Russia becomes officially involved in war against Georgia.

Bruce, you freakin' commie traitor! you've been reading Pravda???:eek:

Nah, just lookin' at the pictures. :headshake

playboy is for pictures bruce.

Oh noes, I wouldn't cheat on SG. :headshake

Correction: what you want the Constitution to say. Good luck with getting those Amendments passed. It appears I have a wider view of foreign policy than you do -- for is it not so that diplomacy is the pleasanter end of foreign policy, and that war is the nasty end? I'll go with Bismarck's remark that war is politics by other means. He could just as well have said foreign policy.

No, no irrefutable proof is visible, not to anyone. You have neglected that important point. I might point out that no one here seems to remember your doing it and I certainly don't see any links.

I'm dithering here between "good luck with that," or simply remarking "IOW, it is not being spread at all." They're just both such good responses. You've still got to outthink and outpunch the tyrants who are guaranteed to raise some objection or other, and we all know what tyrants' objections look like. If you try it radar's way in these environments, all the libertarians die.

Funny, isn't it, that you aren't showing that with the relevant Constitutional text, isn't it? Got any proof, or not? We shall see, won't we? Every single historical precedent is against you, you know. The Supreme Court would not be alone in telling you to take your case, fold it, spindle it, and insert it. The Executive and Legislative Branches would no doubt join the chorus, along with those of us who can't exactly find a downside to removing fascist Ba'athists and replacing them with practicing democrats. What's wrong with your approach is it amounts to "Leave Tyrants Alone." Nonlibertarian in the extreme, I should think.

As a practical matter, defense of America has never been distinguishable from defense of American interests, wherever they may be. In the era of globalization, these are even more inextricably intertwined.

And this rantlet shows superior intellect and character how?

The guy who confuses Republicans with Nazis, or tries to get others so confused, hasn't persuaded me as to the excellence of his understanding. Radar, I very much doubt you understand that last sentence, for I know your mind. You're starting to sound like a sockpuppet for tw, of all people to have the hand of pushed all the way up yours.

What is demonstrated by the behavior of all parties concerned here (Georgia, Russia, United States, South Ossetia, Ukraine, etc) with respect to the question:

What does it mean to be an ally of the United States?

Would Russia have invaded if Georgia had been admitted to NATO, as they desired?

Paul Krugman, who admittedly is usually wrong anytime economics are being discussed, says it means nationalism is becoming ascendent once more. What he doesn't say is that W's aggressive foreign policy helped get us back to this point.

No one wanted Georgia to be admitted to NATO precisely because we are not blind. We knew exactly what would have happened. Georgia would have gone after their break away provinces of South Ossetia, and Abkazia, and expected all their new allies to back them up. We are not that dumb diplomatically. It's been going on since Stalin gave these provinces to Georgia in the early 1900's, intensified in 1991 and carries on today.

The west is big on making Russia out to be the big bad guy in this. They are by no means innocent, neither is Georgia, neither are the South Ossetians. The very nature and way that people think who are born and raised in this part of the world, the way they think about ethnicity is foreign to us in the melting pot of America. Again we are judging the actions of a foreign nation by our own measures and we will come up short, and fail to fully engage out of ignorance.

In my opinion Georgia fucked this one up. We would do the same thing if in Russia's shoes.

The truth is between Pravda and CNN somewhere.

What is the minimum critical mass for a viable state (excluding Grifftopia, of course)?

Is Georgia large enough to stand alone? South Ossetia? Abkazia? I heard that there are as few as 100,000 native Abkaz's (sp?) remaining. How can that be enough to form a stable state? Especially in the location under consideration here? And under the circumstances you describe, having been "given to" Georgia. Perhaps Ohio is large enough to be a viable independent state. What would the US response be to a (hypothetical) "breakaway" by Ohio?

It's pretty ugly from all directions, I admit.

But our own interests must include a demonstrable effect to being called an "ally", don't you agree?

I do agree, we do have to demonstrate our ability to be an ally. We don't have to demonstrate our ability to turn a blind eye to regional history and politics, in favor of our own "spin" of how we'd like to see the world. I think this would serve our interests much more. This "spin" smacks of dishonesty and self delusion to me.

I think diplomatically Georgia fucked this up, it puts us, their friend, into a very tough position.

I suppose if it were up to me, I'd put the mailed fist that we have into a velvet glove more often then have been.

What if the "Ohians" had been living in Ohio since before our alphabet was invented by traveling monks?

To answer your last question, the "Ohioans" in question might be described as Chippewa or Delaware or Erie. This has happened. A futuristic example has even entered the language by the Borg "You will be assimilated."

What makes the wheels go round and round is a mutual respect for the rule of law. My read on this is that the SOs disliked the treatment they received at the hands of the Georgians, and hoped (probably in vain, but the grass is always greener, etc etc) to dislike the treatment by the Russians a little less.

If they want independence, they're dreaming. If they want to be Russians, they'll be accommodated [/borg].

Some, but not all, want to be Russians. In fact many do hold Russian citizenship.

You may be correct on your assessment of Georgia's intentions with NATO membership, but I think that there really would be no obligation on the part of NATO to come to their aid if Georgia was the aggressor, and in this case they may have. All they did was open up a grand opportunity on the part of Russia to do what they have wanted to do for a long time, and that is reverse the bleeding of the break away republics from continuing to defect to the West and the EU. And in the case of Russia, they may also pay a large price for the incursion. Poland quickly agreed to allow a US anti-missile base in Poland. Others may follow suit as well, looking at it as a fast track to get closer to the West and EU and further from the domination and reversal to cold war era of the USSR. We are obviously entering a new cold war. All the more reason to quickly normalize relations with Cuba and cut off a similar move by the Russians in our own back yard.

August 14, 2008
South Ossetia: The perfect wrong war

By now, days after Georgian forces stormed the capital of south Ossetia and Russian units counter attacked across the breaking away province and beyond; a devastating war has spread across the Caucasus causing death, destruction and displacement of populations. All wars are terrible -- even the legitimate ones where country, freedom and survival at are at stake. But this war is particularly unnecessary, could have been avoided and above all is wrong; in fact I call it the perfect wrong war.


Unfortunately, when battles are raging with tanks, artillery, bombs and all sort of firepower, it becomes more difficult to see the substantive issues clearly than before the confrontation began. For example, it becomes more pressing to reach a cease fire, provide medical attention, create Red Cross corridors, stop ethnic cleansing, human rights breaches and take care of refugees, than to investigate who began the hostilities, what provoked it, what are the local claims and what international equation has permitted such an onslaught. And to make it more complicated, rushed journalistic reporting -- often biased -- confuses public opinion endlessly. In short, once the bullets fly, media sensationalism explodes and political agendas creep in.


Let's review the battle of arguments in the South Ossetia conflict and try to analyze the essence while keeping an eye on the bigger picture, the one that affects democracies' national security and international efforts against terror forces.

(continues)
http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...fect_wron.html

All of this is funny, because Bush looked into Putin's eyes and saw the soul of a good man...

Re: Merc's link, http://www.americanthinker.com/2008/...fect_wron.html

That's the first explanation I've seen that makes sense. I don't know if it's accurate, but it sounds logical. :confused:

I think some members Lakota tribe in the Midwest did try to declare independence. I don't really know the result of this.


My thoughts on the Georgia-Russia-South Ossetia conflict have been summed up pretty well here. Big conflict of interests that probably can never be solved without big sacrifices by South Ossetia. But that doesn't mean that this is their fault, just that they are the minority in this situation which puts them at a natural disadvantage.

Missile shield accord draws Russian fire
By Isabel Gorst in Moscow and Jan Cienski in Warsaw

Published: August 15 2008 03:00 | Last updated: August 15 2008 18:09

Moscow lashed out at Washington and Warsaw on Friday, saying the plan to site a US anti-missile defence shield in Poland would undermine the global balance of power and put Poland at risk of nuclear attack.

Washington and Warsaw reached a preliminary agreement on Thursday to build part of the missile defence shield in Poland, station US Patriot missiles there and bolster the two countries’ military co-operation.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/ec3816b6-6...0779fd18c.html

I don't remember that phrase being attributed to Bush. I do remember reports that Bush said he looked him in the eye and got a sense of his soul. Perhaps he did, perhaps he saw a kindred soul, one with a similar affinity for the expansion of executive authority. Goodness knows they each have dramatically pushed the boundaries of their respective offices.

I think Bush recognized his own soul when he looked into Putin's eyes.

My comment was in response to Merc's linked article, not Troubleshooters post. :headshake

No, no, no. We think Georgia used Olympic to plan for a surprise attack. The war stole our show and spoiled a traditional olympic truce.:D

As for Tibet, everybody could have their personal view. But, not much of them really know anything about it, except a little well-manipulated news and their imagination.

I don't think people should blame russia for this confict.

It's Mr. Saakashvili who started this war stupidly and recklessly. Maybe he thought sending 2,000 soldiers in iraq would be enough to scare russians to death, or to get US into a pointless war.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

;)

http://i305.photobucket.com/albums/n...SGXB14MGHY.jpg