chad shaver
Semi-Pro
Boorish means rude and clumsy in behavior.
Personally, I fit the stereotype of pedantic twit.
Be careful calling JCap names, rlbjr, cuz her daddy's Italian. Have fun with the Mafia.....
Personally, I fit the stereotype of pedantic twit.
Be careful calling JCap names, rlbjr, cuz her daddy's Italian. Have fun with the Mafia.....
chad shaver
Semi-Pro
Sandro,
So what is your take on the Mafia? I'm just joking. Where in Italy do you live?
I really enjoy the arguments we have, even if it is on a thread that had been dead for four months.
So what is your take on the Mafia? I'm just joking. Where in Italy do you live?
I really enjoy the arguments we have, even if it is on a thread that had been dead for four months.
Sacco said:
I know this "they are in a "civil war" of sorts" is not the point of your post, but it's not true.
It might look like a civil war before 1996. Then there was a de-facto recognition of Chechen sovereignity made in Chasavurt. After that, what have Chechen leaders done? They invased adjacent Dagestan. So, the second Chechen war is not any "civil". It's a war against international terrorism. Among terrorists in Beslan, which is not Chechnya but Northern Osetia, there were people of Ingush, Arabian and Slavonic origion.
It's all about oil, money and power both in Chechnya and Iraq.
Phil
Hall of Fame
Chad's right-this thread was warm and buried. Anyway, Chechnya has similarities to Iraq. In both wars, the presidents of the countries fighting them use that blanket catch-all phrase, the "War on Terrorism". Before those wars started, there were no Arab mujahedeen in Chechnya and there were none in Iraq (other than Ansar al Islam in the Kurdish northern territory; Saddam, a secular tyrant, didn't like those types). These "WoT"'s have CREATED a pool of terrorists and an infinite source of embittered new recruits-in both Russia/Checnya and Iraq-a cancer that has metasticized.
NEITHER Iraq or Chechnya had a history of fundumentalist, suicidal maniacs running around killing women and children, that is, until Putin and Bush created these quagmires. The US didn't support, and in fact, (weakly) condemed Russian actions in Chechnya, that is UNTIL Bush ran into his own Muslim problem, and needed Putin's support-now they're best bosom buddies. It's all about politics. Politics in this sense, ends up getting a lot of people killed-but not the former KGB thug and the Born Again Puppet-they're above fighting and dying.
Chad, I live in Padova (http://www.big-italy-map.co.uk/map-of-veneto-map.htm); it's in the noth-east area.
Phil said:
There were no Arab mujahedeen in Chechnya until 1996. And only then, when they saw that Russian regime is weak, those hirelings appeared in Chechnya.
And those similarities are just superficial. Chechnya is a territory inside RF. Iraq was an independent state. The problems there are a subject under different jurisdiction. It's an internal affairs - in case of Chechnya, and international affairs - in case of Iraq.
"It's all about politics." Just like I said it's all about oil, money and power. Only in one case, it's power over the country that elected you, and in the other case... well, you've got it.
BTW those suicide women. THey are not "embittered" "black widows" anymore. They are intimidated, psychotropically doped girls who often do not understand what they do.
But you're right. Usama bin Laden was created by CIA during the Afganstan war of the USSR.
Phil
Hall of Fame
That Chechnya happens to be attached to Russia is not my point, which you've missed entirely. The point is that a brutal invasion/occupation that destroyed, entirely, Grosny and the rest of the country, has created (and brought in from outside) Islamic fundumentalist serial killers where there were none before. It has RADICALIZED the people. Same as Iraq. I have a feeling that, in spite of what your press is saying, those "black widows" know EXACTLY what they're doing. That kind of thing happens when entire families are wiped out by untrained and drunken teenage/20-something mobs, otherwise known as the Russian Army (along with the "mercenaries). The mujahideen, parasites that they are, just took advantage of the situation and started coming in, feeding off the people's misery. As in most of these situations, most of the people killed are NOT terrorists.
Funny that you still believe that the CIA or whomever, "created" UBL. In fact, he received very little support from them. They DID, however, support other mujahideen groups, but UBL was self sufficient, having inherited TENS OF MILLIONS from his family's billion-dollar construction business. He didn't need any coaxing from the USA to join that war-so, in that respect, maybe it was the Russians who created him-making him even MORE militant. Before that war even ended, the US administration had categorized him as a threat. Big deal...A lot of good THAT did...
Funny that you still believe that the CIA or whomever, "created" UBL. In fact, he received very little support from them. They DID, however, support other mujahideen groups, but UBL was self sufficient, having inherited TENS OF MILLIONS from his family's billion-dollar construction business. He didn't need any coaxing from the USA to join that war-so, in that respect, maybe it was the Russians who created him-making him even MORE militant. Before that war even ended, the US administration had categorized him as a threat. Big deal...A lot of good THAT did...
Phil said:
It's not your point and it's never a point of most foreign observers.
You and they entirely miss that before the army was brought into action in Grozny, Dudaev's "government" was systematically practicing henocide against non-Chechen population of the republic. There were thousands refugees who had to leave all their movable and immovable property to save their lives. And there already were plenty of home-bred murderers.
Nevertheless, I agree that that first war was carried out stupidly.
It's not a question whether it was needed or not to use force to maintain a constitutional order. The question is how it was needed to be used.
But you cannot blame Putin for that war. It's the same as to blame Bush Jr, for the affairs with Monica.
Phil said:
I can not change your feelings but your information is outdated. "Black widows" are actual widows who decide to revenge for the death of their husbands, doesn't matter if it's right or wrong. Those women precisely knew what they were doing. But it's in the past. Recent shakhids [sp-?] are not widows anymore. They are, like I said, young girls often schoolgirls who are psycothropically doped..
Did you ever tried psychoactive drugs? I did. If you take it on a regular basis, it can cause permanent damage to your mind.
Now, it's ridiculous to call the whole Russian Army like you did on the basis of those facts that had been published. It's the same as to call the whole US army a mob of perverts who do nothing beyond taking sexual advantage of their prisoners. Here, you believe to our press. You're truly selective, aren't you?
Phil said:
It's funny you don't believe this. Those "facts" you mentioned is just what you read or hear from your massmedia. You believe in it again?
Phil
Hall of Fame
Ahh...no, I never tried them, but I believe you.
No, not selective. I know that the Russian Army is old and busted, using outdated and poorly-maintained weapons. I know A LOT more about this than you think. They are also heavily involved in black marketeering-because they don't get paid much at all. Conscripts are also subject to brutal hazing by the more senior enlisted people. I can go on, but rather, I'll just say that they've made a mess out of this and killed, ***** and tortured a lot more people than they "should" have. Not saying the US military is perfect, but overall, WITH SOME EXCEPTIONS, it is a professional military force-there are no conscripts in the US military.
I don't get my information from the mass media. I read a little bit further than that on topics that interest me. I don't read our equivalent of Pravda, but the papers I DO read, I can usually pick out the b.s. If you want to press home the point-which is not the point I was making-that Chechnya is part of soverign Russian territory, than I suppose the destruction of that region is equivalent to the US military invading Texas or Missouri and destroying everything in its path...but wait...they DID do that, 143 years ago.
chad shaver
Semi-Pro
1. If I remember correctly, English is her second language.
2. What the heck do you mean by that, anyway?
2. What the heck do you mean by that, anyway?
Phil said:
Such underestimations can be dangerous. Don't you think?
to be precise, you should've said " I know A LOT more about this than I think you think. "
This is serious.
There could be single instances of violation, any case is investigated and the guilty are punished.
There could be excessive killing. However, you'll have a really hard time proving it.
About tortures. I never heard about it. Yet, I do not claim that if I don't know something, this something doesn't exists.
But I do know about what was done to captives by Chechen assassins.
You might not believe me but I knew this even before your last post. I just don't get it how it concerns our discussion.
I would only recommend you to memorize only those remainders that are left after your picking out. :lol:
Seriously. You think you can find out truth when it's tried to be warped. I think that if they want to deceive you (or me), they'll inevitably succeed in it.
So, when there is the need in the use of army, it IS used. And even if they do it tomorrow, it would be an internal affair of the US,
nobody else.
In the end. You definitely know much about Russia. I respect this. It shows that you care. And it's really rare when people care about something beyond their own everyday life. But you seem to average out your information over the whole Russia. I mean that you mention 'dedovshina' (it's when senior conscripts torture newcomers) and mercenaries in one sentence. Or "outdated and poorly-maintained weapons" and the troops in Chechnya. All this does exist, but all this exists separately. There is no conscripts in Chechnya. There is no dedovshina in Chechnya.
So, take this into account next time when you make your conlusions.
Phil
Hall of Fame
No. Not to me at least. I can afford to be honest and no one's gonna fire me. In the 1980's the Pentagon was saying how dangerous the Russian military is, and of course it was, but the Pentagon over-hyped the danger to justify the huge budgets they asked for. In reality, the Soviet military was breaking down (i.e. becoming "BUSTED") even then.
You're kidding, right? Or else you're more brainwashed than I thought. "SINGLE INSTANCES"?...dude, the number of Chechyans killed by the Russian military and free lance mercenaries is in the TENS OF THOUSANDS...that doesn't justify Chechyan terrorisim, but it does explain why it exists. Get your facts STRAIGHT before you spew this b.s. on a public, NON-PRAVDA chat board. We're talking ETHNIC CLEANSING here-up to 10% of the population.
You took exception to a comment I made about the quality of the Russian military. I countered with some facts as to WHY it has gone bad. A major part of that is the culture of the military-i.e. "dedovshina"; people who are brutalized will, if given the chance, brutalize others who are weaker than them, hence, the senseless slaughter of Chechyan CIVILIANS (not terrorists). The other points about weapons and conscripts are all relevant to that. You're telling me "there is (sic) no conscripts in Chechnya"? Really. So everyone in the Russian military fighting there is a volunteer? Everyone WANTS to be there, right? That's news to me and anyone else who has read anything about the war. I really think you're deluded on this issue-but I'm speaking to a Russian and like ANYONE, it is human nature to defend your own country, regardless of how wrong it is in this instance, and deny the facts. So this doesn't surprise me. You're a bright person, so instead of being insulted and acting defensive, why not do a little research on this and PROVE me wrong? You really SHOULD do a Google search ("Chechnya", "casualties in Chechnya", etc.) and you'll find plenty to rock your world. Try to be objective-I can certainly be objective about the crappy things my country has done. That doesn't mean I don't love my country. In fact, if all you do is parrot what the mainstream media and government organs shove down your throat, that means...you really don't care-about the issue or your country.
Phil said:
Well, I did search "casualties in chechnya" and these are some results:
at http://www.times.spb.ru/archive/times/844/news/n_8695.htm it is said that
"The Soldiers' Mothers Committee, basing its information on information from wounded troops and soldiers' relatives, estimates that about 11,000 service personnel have been killed and more than 30,000 wounded since the war's start, said its chief, Valentina Melnikova. In the previous, 1994-96 conflict, 14,000 died, according to the group's estimate - well over twice the official toll of 5,500 dead and 700 missing."
Not a bad result for civilian Chechens... It's sad but it certanly didn't rocked my world. And those "tens thousand chechens" you mentioned does not look like ethnic cleansing at all.
I might violate their copyright but that's what I found at the aljazeera.net (you wouldn't call it PRAVDA-like mainstream media or "government organ", would you?)
"
Russia suffers more casualties in Chechnya
Tuesday 10 February 2004, 17:31 Makka Time, 14:31 GMT
Six pro-Russian servicemen have been killed after their jeep was blown up by a remote controlled explosive device in the heart of Grozny.
The six soldiers, all residents of Chechnya, worked in a military command post in Grozny, the shelled-out capital of the separatist republic of Chechnya, ITAR-TASS reported on Tuesday, quoting regional police officials.
Also on Tuesday, two Russian soldiers were killed by unidentified assailants in Grozny, said Aljazeera's correspondent in Moscow.
The attackers stripped the soldiers of their weapons after killing them, added the correspondent.
The guerrilla war in the Caucasian republic has been raging for more than four years, despite repeated government assurances the campaign has been won by Moscow.
Today's attacks came four days after a subway blast killed 40 people in Moscow, in an attack blamed by authorities on Chechen rebels but repudiated by the ousted president Aslan Maskhadov. "
Phil wrote:
Not volunteers but mercenaries. Not everyone wants to be there but some do. They are paid for it. I said that your information is outdated. And you show it again. Those tens thousands killed, about whom I wrote above, WERE conscripts, but the amount of them is being reduced day by day.
So how can this "busted" be used about Kuznetzova?
It's my turn to call you Delbert. It can be dangerous not because someone can fire you, but because someone would decide to check it in practice
Not volunteers but mercenaries. Not everyone wants to be there but some do. They are paid for it. I said that your information is outdated. And you show it again. Those tens thousands killed, about whom I wrote above, WERE conscripts, but the amount of them is being reduced day by day.
So how can this "busted" be used about Kuznetzova?
It's my turn to call you Delbert. It can be dangerous not because someone can fire you, but because someone would decide to check it in practice
Phil
Hall of Fame
I think the term "Busted" used to refer to Kuznetzova is NOT on your little list of definitions. It wouldn't be. Use your imagination to figure it out. Anyway, I didn't make the statement about Kuznetzova.
Your facts are STILL wrong. The bulk of the fighting is still being done by the Russian army (i.e. conscripts). You disappoint me, coming back with such a lame response.
Your facts are STILL wrong. The bulk of the fighting is still being done by the Russian army (i.e. conscripts). You disappoint me, coming back with such a lame response.
C_Urala,
Forgive me for the 'civil war' comment; I was guilty myself of trying to balance the facts to distance myself, and even if it wasn't the point of my post, I do apologize.
The only real world experience I have had is working as a waiter with a Chechen woman a number of years back. She was from the wealthy class and after the fall of the Soviet Union, her house was taken away by the Russians, maybe, at least how she told it. So she was working to buy cars in America and ship them over to Russia, make a huge profit in resale and regain her status. Overall, a nice lady-- holding down three jobs to make an extra few dollars.
That doesn't really relate, but I do see how 'civil war' is a non-sequitur here more.
Forgive me for the 'civil war' comment; I was guilty myself of trying to balance the facts to distance myself, and even if it wasn't the point of my post, I do apologize.
The only real world experience I have had is working as a waiter with a Chechen woman a number of years back. She was from the wealthy class and after the fall of the Soviet Union, her house was taken away by the Russians, maybe, at least how she told it. So she was working to buy cars in America and ship them over to Russia, make a huge profit in resale and regain her status. Overall, a nice lady-- holding down three jobs to make an extra few dollars.
That doesn't really relate, but I do see how 'civil war' is a non-sequitur here more.
Phil said:
I didn't say that you made this statement. You capitalized this word and I thought it's because your use of the word is somehow related with what Rickson said. I just hoped you can explain me what he meant, since it seems he prefers to make vague allusions instead of standing by his words. As for my imagination, it's too luxuriant and can take me too far away. I prefer to keep my feet on a more solid ground.
Phil said:
I didn't say that you made this statement. You capitalized this word and I thought it's because your use of the word is somehow related with what Rickson said. I just hoped you can explain me what he meant, since it seems he prefers to make vague allusions instead of standing by his words. As for my imagination, it's too luxuriant and can take me too far away. I prefer to keep my feet on a more solid ground.
Phil said:
O'k. You got me. There are conscripts in Chechnya. Yet. According to the plans of the Joint Staff, they will stop to draft them from the beginning of 2005. I'm not sure about the "bulk", because I have an information that about a half of the troups there are mercenares and professionals, but maybe you're right. My point still remains. Your posts look like you average out your information (it's not a reproach).
Now. Let me formulate my position.
In the heat of discussion, I could say something that contradicts the following. Everybody knows I'm an emotional guy and you definitely struck my nerve.
Anyway.
You said that situations in Chechnya and in Iraq have similarities. I agree and would add that all wars are similar in the sense that all wars lead to escalation of violence.
I don't agree that the situation in Chechnya is the fault of solely federal forces. The first Chechen war wasn't started just because of boredom of Eltzin. The situation with human rights of non-Chechen residents had been horrible long before 1996.
The difference between Chechnya and Iraq, and it's of principal importance, is that Russia was fighting in attempt to save its own integrity, whereas the US had no right to invade another country.
You said many correct things about the Russian Army. There are really a lot of problems there. And its effectiveness is far from ideal.
But you have no other mean to maintain an effective army except by regularly using it. The US really succeeded in it, sending their troups all over the world.
The budget of Pentagon is at least 100 times more than the budget of the Russian Department of Defense. And they don't have problems with getting the newest weapons. And what?
The US troups in Iraq have lost more than 1000 soldiers. They are not conscripts, the are professionals. So I don't really get your pathos about it.
You can find even more problems in Russia, and all of them will be rightful. But it's too easy. It's more difficult to find solutions.
Give me a favor, when you analyze your information, please, take into account that there are still about 150 mln people and they are different. I would even say that the difference between average American and average Russian is less than the differences between different Russians.
Phil
Hall of Fame
No, I wouldn't be repeating anything that Rickson says in my own posts-1,000+ posts from him and still, absolutely nothing of value there. "Busted" is also slang for a girl who has lost her virginity-i.e. "She's been busted by the big guy."-you can probably work out WHAT is busted.
As for Chechnya, you made some good points. I did read that Russia was planning to end its draft soon, but we'll see. Personally, I don't think they'll do it in 2005-unless they want to lose their entire army. It will probably be a gradual elimination of the draft, over the course of several years. After all, the government cannot expect volunteers to come running to join the armed forces unless they actually PAY these people.
Wars don't LEAD to the escalation of violence, they are the end RESULT of an escalation of violence. A War is the ultimate form of violence.
Of course it's more difficult to find solutions rather than list problems, but before you find solutions, you have to know what the problems are and speak about them honestly, and THEN address them.
I still think you should take a look at a non-partisan Website to get a more balanced perspective on Chechnhya. Try Human Rights Watch's site, or any number of them. You know the basic situation there-these sources provide a different side from what you normally hear. Anyway, it's up to you.
Phil said:
They are already gradually decreasing the amount of consripts in Chechnya. It was announced more than a year ago. That's why I thought there are no conscripts there anymore.
Yes, wars are the result of an escalation of violence. It is what I was trying to say. But they also lead to its further escalation. And this idea actually follows from your posts.
I also agree that before you can solve a problem, you have to name the problem. But at this stage, it's wise to avoid any accusation.
I felt that you condemn only one side in the conflict and I didn't like it. Sorry, if I took your position wrong.
As for HRW. I have looked through their site.
The following is from
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/russia8424.htm
"About ten days ago, Human Rights Watch researchers spoke with villagers from Duba-Yurt in southern Chechnya while they were still searching for their “disappeared” relatives. They told Human Rights Watch that at around 2 a.m. on March 27, eight military vehicles bearing smudged number plates entered the village. Among the vehicles were armored personnel carriers, used exclusively by Russian forces.
A large group of masked men in camouflage uniforms, who had arrived in these vehicles, raided 19 houses in Duba-Yurt and detained 11 men between the ages of 28 and 44. Several witnesses independently told Human Rights Watch that the armed men—who spoke Russian without a Chechen accent—burst into the houses, forced the families to the floor at gunpoint, and took the men away without checking their documents or giving them a chance to dress. "
The accusation is made on these two points:
1. People in uniforms arrived at the carriers used exclusively by Russian forces.
2. They spoke without a Chechen accent.
It is well known that there are people of many nationalities among terrorists, uncluding Russian and Ukranian. It can not be considered as evidence. There are also some facts that terrorists use uniform of federal forces to discredit them in the eye of local population.
It's not the function of the HRW to conduct formal investigation, but they can avoid their accusations until the investigation is over.
"During the Chechnya conflict, now in its fifth year, tens of thousands of civilians have fallen victim to abuses perpetrated by both Russian forces and Chechen rebels. These abuses include indiscriminate bombings and several massacres, extrajudicial executions, forced disappearances, rape, torture and arbitrary detentions. The overwhelming majority of these crimes remained uninvestigated and unpunished.
Nevertheless, Russian authorities claim that the situation in Chechnya has been “normalized.” Meanwhile, they have persistently restricted access to the region for journalists and for international humanitarian and human rights agencies, and have coerced thousands of the internally displaced to return back to Chechnya, with blatant disregard for their security. "
The HRW consistently call terrorists "rebels". Even during the tragedy in Beslan. I'm not an expert in English semantics, but to me "rebel" has a different meaning than "murderer" what those terrorists really are.
They admit that abuses of human rights are mutual but accuse only one side.
About this "normalized". If they do not see any difference in the situation since 2000, they have really strange eyesight. I never heard that anybody of Russian authorities ever said that the situation in Chechnya is normal or has been normalized. It is being normalized.
Maybe, federal forces "have coerced thousands of the internally displaced to return back to Chechnya" not because of "blatant disregard for their security" but namely because they can not garantee their security back in Chechnya.
In other words, I would take words of the HRW with a grain of salt.
They do a necessary job, but they are not the truth personified.
Phil
Hall of Fame
Well, even with some pretty nasty information/evidence in front of you, and much more out there, you're still asking for "proof". Obviously you're going to believe what you want to believe, and that's not going to change. For you, Chechnya is a war to retain Russian territorial integrity, and the only people being killed are "terrorists". I understand this line of thinking-it is narrow and repugnant, but understandable because you are a non-partial observer and your mind has closed on the issue. I'm sure that if you were to ask an average German citizen during WW II if the Nazis were doing good things, he would probably say, yes, they were. Again, human nature. End of discussion.
Phil said:
Well, the more I think about that accident, the odder it looks.
The men disappeared on 27.03.2004. Then they were kept somewhere about 10 days. Then they were found on 9.04.2004 (experts said that they had been killed about 2 days ago), just in time to let all this mess hit the fan before an upcoming EU-Russia ministerial meeting. It seems really strange that alleged federal forces timed their actions to this meeting and did not killed their victims after the meeting. On the contrary, if one supposes that this action was done by terrorists, everything comes to its place.
So, I see information but not evidence. But you're right I AM going to believe what I want to believe. AND it's true for ANY person all over the world (you included). It's just (you're right again) human nature. The only difference between you and me that you want to believe to the other side.
For me, (you're right again) this war IS a was for territorial integrity, but I didn't say that "the only people being killed are "terrorists"".
I said that it were terrorists who killed those nine men. Civilians do suffer from this war. And federal forces are not angels, there are plenty of people who committed crime. I only say that before making any accusation, you should prove it.
I admit that I can be brain- washed. And this makes my mind more open when I analize information in front of me. You, on the contrary, believe that you can not be. And Here is the main danger. the person who thinks that he'll never become an addict inevitably ends his life in some rehabilitation institution. Good luck!
And it's NOT the end.
J
jeebeesus
Guest
i can`t believe this all started with Capriati being the ugly American., look if you guys really think so n don`t want her, can i have her pleeeeeeeeeeeeeeease?
