The Atheist Communist Caliphate Made Flesh, Spread the Clusterfuck Around Thread

[MikeC]

Not that I'd expect you to grasp nuance'd

After a lengthy inquiry, investigators commissioned by the European Union are expected to conclude that Georgia ignited last year's war with Russia by attacking separatists in South Ossetia, rejecting the Georgian government's explanation that the attack was defensive, according to an official familiar with the investigators' work.

But the report is expected to balance this conclusion with an equally weighty one: If Georgia fired the first shot, Russia created and exploited the conditions that led to war, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the report had not yet been made public.

It clearly makes sense that an under equipped Georgian military with a population of 4 million  would try to attack the heavily armed Russian army and their 150 million citizens and think they could not only pull that off, but do it while 2000 of their best troops were in Iraq. Common sense would make you think if they were going to start a war they would have waited until after they had installed new communications equipment from the US and would have waited until they got their best troops back in country.

Now think of it from Russian point of view, they don't want Georgia associated with Nato or the United States at all. Much like they don't want Poland aligning with US on missile defense. What would be the best time to invade Georgia? Before they get new communications equipment installed so that Georgian forces can't communicate and do it while their best troops are out of country.

I am trying to find an article from someone who is an expert on the region and goes over every detail of the Russian invasion. Russian had been building up forces in the region since spring. 150 tanks rushed across the border within hours of the order to invade. A lot of pre-planning of military equipment was done by the Russian military prior to Georgia's so called attack. With Georgia doing almost nothing to consolidate its forces to take on the Russian military.

The #1 claim by Russia was that they invaded Georgia to stop ethnic cleansing by Georgian forces on South Ossetians. They claimed over 2,000 people had been killed and called it genocide, so being the good Russians they were with their pre-staged military force they invaded.

Russian officials initially claimed that up to 2,000 civilians died in South Ossetia on Aug. 7 before Russian troops arrived on the scene. That estimate has since been reduced — by Russia — to 133, which is well short of anyone's definition of a "genocide" that would justify a rapid foreign intervention. Representatives of Human Rights Watch, who visited all four hospitals in the region shortly after the battle, say the organization has proof of only 44 deaths that night.

In addition to that South Ossentia region was shelling Georgian villages which required a response from the Georgian military. This is how they were suckered into a fight. By claiming an unprovoked attack and genocide this allowed the Russian military to get involved. Georgian intelligence had gotten word that the main Russian armored column was racing through the Roki Tunnel into South Ossentia. If Georgia could stop the Russian army at the tunnel they could stop the invasion in its tracks, failure to do so would allow Russian armor to take over the whole region. Again another damn fine reason to go into South Ossentia for Georgian forces.

In co-ordination with these events Russia launched cyber attacks on the Georgian Government before the supposed out of no where Georgia Invasion began. If you weren't expecting a war wouldn't these events occur after fighting started not before?

http://larussophobe.wordpress.com/2009/03/30/confirmed-kgb-launched-cyber-attack-on-georgia/

Too many coincidences line up for Russia to just be defending itself. They are not just going to invade someone out of thin air, they want the political cover to do it. And the more disinformation and doubt they can spread, the more embolden they will be to keep trying to re-control this region. Remember Hitler claimed Poland attacked them for his reason to attack Poland. Why an army made of horses would want to challenge an army made of Tanks and Iron is beyond me and ultimately untrue. So I don't believe a poorly equipped Georgian Army with their best troops in Iraq would ever go picking a fight with the Russian Military. They were simply defending themselves from Russian aggression and Russia manipulated the whole event to gain political cover for the invasion.

[Slaky]

Does anyone read this crap?

[CBStew]

A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.

We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.

Nor can we have a Dem in Congress doing the same. A WSJ column illustrated that 40 years ago, Congressmen and Senators voted with their parties about 65% of the time. Today, Republicans in Congress vote in lockstep with Republicans 87% of the time, while Dems vote with their kind 92% of the time.

What's your point? Most Democrats think like Democrats and most Republicans think like Republicans? 

[MikeC]

Mike--

Didn't you claim to have voted for Al Gore in 2000?  I mean, I'm not sure I even believed you when you said it, but I'm pretty sure you did in fact make that claim.

Not voted for but I wanted him to win, i didn't pay attention to politics at all before that that. What I knew i learned from NBC nightly news or whatever prior to that. 9/11 made me want to learn more and blogs exploded after that into all sorts of commentary. I didn't even know the difference between Rep or Dem prior to that, now i have a better understanding and my ideals gel more with Republicans than Dems. Though some of you will say i still don't know the difference.

That's fine but that is what I believe, and its what you believe on your side. Each side thinks the other is a clueless idiot being told what to do, that none of us have a brain to think on our own. In reality we do think and make decisions on what we will or will not support on our own. But we just love telling the other side your a fucking idiot.

I want less government, i don't want trillions spent on health care reform, i didn' t want the stimulus bill and i want a strong international leadership. Most importantly any politician engaged in unethical behavior needs his ass removed. The Democrats had a wonderful chance to actually embrace that image of cleaning up Washington. And I think since coming to power in Washington they have done an epic failure in every aspect. Maybe the American public will give Republicans a chance again, and maybe this time they will hold people accountable for their actions instead of playing the political party favoritism game. I don't care if it hurts you in getting the votes you need but if you have someone like Charles Rangel who suddenly finds out he has millions in assets, something needs to be done about it. You just don't keep going on like its no big deal. Same goes for Republicans.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Wow.

I knew Bircherism was resurgent and all, but I had know clue we'd be back to blaming it all on the Russkies so soon.

[R-V]

A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.

We can't have anyone in the GOP who thinks for herself.

Nor can we have a Dem in Congress doing the same. A WSJ column illustrated that 40 years ago, Congressmen and Senators voted with their parties about 65% of the time. Today, Republicans in Congress vote in lockstep with Republicans 87% of the time, while Dems vote with their kind 92% of the time.

Are these percentages just for 2009, or over a longer time period? Also curious what the numbers looked like 30 or 20 or 10 years ago.

[CBStew]

[
That's fine but that is what I believe, and its what you believe on your side. Each side thinks the other is a clueless idiot being told what to do, that none of us have a brain to think on our own. In reality we do think and make decisions on what we will or will not support on our own. But we just love telling the other side your a fucking idiot.

And to think that a Republican Congresswoman had the temerity to think "on her own". 

[PenFoe]

Does anyone read this crap?

It's only 5 words, even you don't often screw that up.

[Gil Gunderson]

Was listening to David Plouffe today trying to tell people how a poor innocent moderate Republican like Scozzafava was sabotage by the lunatics on the right in Sarah Palin, Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck. And how he was soooooo concerned with the health of the Republican party.

He doesn't give a rats ass about Republicans and Scozzafava is a liberal registered as a Republican. She voted for the stimulus, she wants healthcare for all, her voting record is so damn far to the left it isn't even funny. And its supporting candidates like that is where the Republicans have gone wrong. Michael Steele, and Newt Gingrich are morons for throwing their support at Scozzafava. And it just goes to show you how screwed up the leadership is with Republicans. Inside the party one side just wants to be Democrat light to try and win elections, while the other side wants to return to Republican values of less government, lower taxes, strong military etc.

A Republican win or loss means either way that Republicans are alienating moderates, thats how it will be portrayed by the media. No matter what happens atleast we got rid of a liberal posing a Republican, and people in that state saw that sham and stopped supporting her. You just can't claim to be Republican and then vote for every liberal policy that comes down the pipe.

I'm sorry, can non-Congresspeople or Senators vote on Federal legislation?  If so, I vote YES on the public option and YES on pornography for all.

[Gil Gunderson]

Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.

Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean

[Philberto]

Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.

Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean

I would think this could work

[Powdered Toast Man]

Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.

Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean

Wow.  That was actually pretty righteous.  I'm a nerd for this kind of stuff...nice find, LA Gil.

[Quality Start Machine]

Wow.

I knew Bircherism was resurgent and all, but I had know clue we'd be back to blaming it all on the Russkies so soon.

The Commies are taking us over. True story.

They're doing it economically rather than militarily, and it's China instead of the Russkies, but it's gonna hai.

[Dr. Nguyen Van Falk]

Also, I don't know where to put this, since I don't think we have a Commufascisthomoscience thread, but this fascinated the hell out of me.

Giant Crack in Africa Will Create a New Ocean

I would think this could work

This makes it Clusterfuck-worthy...

http://www.balloon-juice.com/?p=29281

It brings up a couple points:

    * Does the fact that this is happening so quickly make the theory of plate tectonics more believable to young earthers?

    * Thank God this wasn't Kenya or they'd be looking for a birth certificate in there.

Update. This is good news for conservatives.

[R-V]

Once again, I need someone to explain to me why something is a bad idea.

The British government announced Tuesday that it will break up parts of major financial institutions bailed out by taxpayers, highlighting a growing divide across the Atlantic over how to deal with the massive banks that were partially nationalized during the height of the financial crisis.

The British government -- spurred on by European regulators -- is forcing the Royal Bank of Scotland, Lloyds Banking Group and Northern Rock to sell off parts of their operations. The Europeans are calling for more and smaller banks to increase competition and eliminate the threat posed by banks so large that they must be rescued by taxpayers, no matter how they conducted their business, in order to avoid damaging the global financial system.

"We still need to see exactly which parts the [British] banks will need to sell off to judge whether the goal of having smaller banks is really achieved," said Richard Portes, an economics professor at the London Business School. "But there are lessons here for the United States. The supposed economies of scale of massive financial institutions are outweighed by the difficulties in controlling risk inside them."