It might even strengthen the resolve of certain minority groups in other nations to pursue independence or a claim for recognition as a seperate entity from the nation, by turning to other nations for protection.
Typically, as alway, SIngapore will adopt and a wait and see strategy. Russia is one of our big economy business partner, it is still very powerful, we also got alots of Russia girls here doing business. Our govt will supoort the big and powerful one, and whoever wins, we will side who, in the end we actually get the most of it, very clever singapore govt.
Or perhaps despicable...in the moral sense...
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:Russia not under rule of communist party and also not ruled according to principles of communism.
China is under rule of communist party but that is only a name, it is also not ruled under principles of communism.
Russia not communist??? wow! who is stalinist and leninist?? Russia is the first country to adopt communism. But today, they just open up, but still communism, of a different policy. A policy of economy and $$ instead of comrades and sisterhoods.
What Russia is doing now is to teach Geogia a lesson, Geogia was part of the Russia states under the Soviet Union communist Rules, it just that after given independency, the boy get naughty and big brother tell him to stop playing a fool, respect your big brother.
As for Singapore, where got big brother??? long long go back Britain and sleep liao??
Meat Pao,
I agree with you on most parts of your argument, especially regarding the undermining of UN's authority in the eye's of the world. I also agree that the UN should assert itself, as an organisation, rather than a collection of nations with personal interests at heart. I understand that this topic revolves around how this event would affect Singapore, however I'd like to see it from a different point of view. Rather than just stating the economical and political impacts that it would have on Singapore, how about how we as a people feel and decide to deal with this matter?
I believe that a nation is not where it is placed on the map, but the people it is made out of. You could put singaporeans on any part of the world and it would become singapore, just with a slightly different history.
So with this in mind, Singapore is a member of the UN, and thus has responsibility on the global scale, we are supposed to help those who need us, that was the priciple of the UN, for the greater good of all. Singapore has the duty to respond to this matter, because the UN has to respond to this matter, even if it means we have to march our troops to war. If you put the blame on one man, you would simply be playing bureaucratic politics, just like how those politician we love to hate do.
So as a people we should take an affirmitive stand and support UN in it's decisions, against the major players in the world. Isn't it the point of the UN to empower the weak and give voice to those who can't speak for themselves? So we watch the superpowers tear OUR world apart, for their benefit, whilst we sit around waiting for the scraps...Not very dignified is it?
Even if the superpowers hold more votes on the UN council, Someone has to make a stand, that's how an opposition is built, to muster the courage of everyone else in the world.
Singaporeans, we should not wonder whether it affects us, ofcourse it does!!! We are part of this world aren't we?
Please don't take offense at what I've said...just correct me...I'm always willing to listen.
Russia not communist??? wow! who is stalinist and leninist?? Russia is the first country to adopt communism. But today, they just open up, but still communism, of a different policy.
Russia now is not communist lah.
What sort of logic is that?
What Russia is doing now is to teach Geogia a lesson, Geogia was part of the Russia states under the Soviet Union communist Rules, it just that after given independency, the boy get naughty and big brother tell him to stop playing a fool, respect your big brother.
Do you know USA is encircling Russia now?
If Russia don't make their moves now, USA will neutralise off their power.
Russia, Europe and USA: Fundamental Geopolitics
At the expense of other sovereign countries whose politics it has no right to interfere in and undermine? One superpower stirring shit in the Middle East and more is bad enough...we don't need 2.
Its all the East vs West conflict again.
Gosh man I dounno why leaders of strong nations still have such immature mindset. Like that of a 3 yr old, only know how to fight.
The money used in such conflicts can be directed to increase the quality of life of the citizen.
See:
Dick Cheney's song of America: Drafting a plan for global dominance
http://www.harpers.org/archive/2002/10/
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nukevault/
http://www.comw.org/pda/fulltext/9709
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/it
the world is run by these powers anyway. they can do whatever they want as long as they are self-sufficient.
there is not a single country in the world that can defend Georgia from Russia without nuclear diplomacy
Kuali Baba
I beg to differ, though many times in history, from the Vietnam war to the current situation of the Middle east and the Georgia-Russian conflict, foriegn intervention has been portrayed as something negative. However is it also not true that Europe might very well be in Nazi hands if it were not for American and Russian entrance into the war? Though the soviets did make things alot harder for the eastern european nations it liberated by turning them into satellite states, the Americans did help Europe back up on it's feet with the Marshall plan. Even if it were for selfish reasons, they did accomplish defeating hitler and rebuilding Europe. Sometimes other nations need help to achieve what they cannot achieve alone. I cannot say that Georgia was right in this case, but I can say that Russia was wrong for having invaded Georgia. It would have been acceptable for Russia to force the Georgianas out of S.Ossetia to make a point, afterall is S.Ossetia not entitled to a claim for indepence?
Can you tell me how one can resolve a grudge that spans thousands of years? The conflict in the middle east has been going on since the creation of Isreal, by the Jews after their escape from Egypt. They stole the lands from the Palestinians, once then, again after the World wars with the support of the British. It's not a pretty picture but sometimes, there's only space for one person on the block, and one needs the help of others to seize a decisive advantage over the other.
Again no offence meant, please correct me if I'm wrong
I'll address your first paragraph, and I'll do so bluntly. If you were to suggest to people in Eastern Europe that they should be thankful, you'd earn a slap. To them, both the Nazis and the Soviets were equally bad. The latter no doubt drove out the Germans, but they occupied the said countries, and subsequently supplanted and suppressed the original identities. The "liberators" were really also villains.
However, since the fall of communism, Russia has not let go of neither its ambitions nor its view that its former territories are under its sphere of influence. It has done more than its fair share of interference and undermining than being a neighbour should, especially under Putin. No one wants to see a return to the bad old days...the USA may have its own selfish interests in the region but its the only country perceived to be strong enough to help them.
One won't fully understand unless he/she has lived there during that era - I know and regularly talk to people who have, and so I have a wee inkling. And it still isn't looking good...
I made a mistake by saying "Middle East" when I was referring to Iraq and Afghanistan.
Originally posted by Tenebrae:Kuali Baba
I cannot say that Georgia was right in this case, but I can say that Russia was wrong for having invaded Georgia. It would have been acceptable for Russia to force the Georgianas out of S.Ossetia to make a point, afterall is S.Ossetia not entitled to a claim for indepence?
I just feel that two wrongs does not make a right!
Anyway, call me idealistic or a dreamer. But maybe what this world needs is an ultimate neutral force that can defeat all others! Kinda like in one of the Superman comics where he got fed up with war and destroyed every single weapon that both the countries were using. They gave up fighting since they were powerless to anything anymore. Or like in the Gundam 00 anime series where the powerful Celestial Body's Gundams trash all nations that start a war. But then again people would argue who can keep this ultimate power in check if they turn bad! Ha Ha.
However is it also not true that Europe might very well be in Nazi hands if it were not for American and Russian entrance into the war?
It was Britain that wanted europe to be in Nazi hands.
They wanted to turn Germany eastwards to destroy Russia.
And by the way, that history they taught you in school about why WWII started was british propaganda.
It's horseshit.
The british had an active role in bringing about WWII, but since they won the war, they decided to cover up some of their agenda and activities that led up to the war, teaching you their bullshit propaganda in school and movies.
Real history:
...And by this date, certain members of the Milner Group and of the British Conservative government had reached the fantastic idea that they could kill two birds with one stone by setting Germany and Russia against one another in Eastern Europe.
In this way they felt that the two enemies would stalemate one another, or that Germany would become satisfied with the oil of Rumania and the wheat of the Ukraine. It never occurred to anyone in a responsible position that Germany and Russia might make common cause, even temporarily, against the West.
Even less did it occur to them that Russia might beat Germany and thus open all Central Europe to Bolshevism.
In order to carry out this plan of allowing Germany to drive eastward against Russia, it was necessary to do three things:
(1) to liquidate all the countries standing between Germany and Russia;
(2) to prevent France from honoring her alliances with these countries; and
(3) to hoodwink the English people into accepting this as a necessary, indeed, the only solution to the international problem.
The Chamberlain group were so successful in all three of these things that they came within an ace of succeeding, and failed only because of the obstinacy of the Poles, the unseemly haste of Hitler, and the fact that at the eleventh hour the Milner Group realized the implications of their policy and tried to reverse it...
Kuali Baba
If you hadn't noticed I said that "Though the soviets did make things alot harder for the eastern european nations it liberated by turning them into satellite states, the Americans did help Europe back up on it's feet with the Marshall plan." I understand that the U.S.S.R definitely was no better than the Nazis and in no way support their actions in the east. I was only trying bring a point that foreign intervention is sometimes needed in order to turn the tide. As you stated "the USA may have its own selfish interests in the region but its the only country perceived to be strong enough to help them."
However I agree with you that Russia is a threat the world cannot ignore. Which is why Singapore shouldn't because we are part of this world. Sot his matter affects us whether we like it or not.
Poh ah Pak
I did not know for certain that the British was behind it all, but I did know that in the beginning the British had hoped for a powerful Germany under Hitler to oppose Stalin, as Hitler was strongly anti - communist. The fact remains that the plan went awry for both parties, so in the end a foreign nation was called in to clean up the mess. Namely U.S.A... So the point remains that foriegn intervention is necessary at times.
I did not know for certain that the British was behind it all, but I did know that in the beginning the British had hoped for a powerful Germany under Hitler to oppose Stalin, as Hitler was strongly anti - communist.
Britain was not behind it all.
They were only responsible for encouraging Hitler to expand eastwards.
Hitler was anti-commie and wanted to expand Germany to the east, so the british thought that it was a good idea to let him go east and destroy commie Russia.
They wanted both to fight each other and finish each other off.
Here is a narrative that you won't find in any british history textbook, because they fucking decided to cover up their fucking cynical plot, like Japanese textbooks whitewash WWII atrocities:
...Any analysis of the motivations of Britain in 1938-1939 is bound to be difficult because different people had different motives, motives changed in the course of time, the motives of the government were clearly not the same as the motives of the people, and in no country has secrecy and anonymity been carried so far or been so well preserved as in Britain. In general, motives become vaguer and less secret as we move our attention from the innermost circles of the government outward.
As if we were looking at the layers of an onion, we may discern four points of view:
(1) the anti-Bolsheviks at the center,
(2) the "three-bloc-world" supporters close to the center,
(3) the supporters of "appeasement," and
(4) the "peace at any price" group in a peripheral position.
The "anti-Bolsheviks," who were also anti-French, were extremely important from 1919 to 1926, but then decreased to little more than a lunatic fringe, rising again in numbers and influence after 1934 to dominate the real policy of the government in 1939. In the earlier period the chief figures in this group were Lord Curzon, Lord D'Abernon, and General Smuts. They did what they could to destroy reparations, permit German rearmament, and tear down what they called "French militarism."
...
Poh Ah Pak
I'm sorry, but I'm a bit lost here. I thought we were discussing the Georgian-Russian conflict? Ofcourse it has been enlightening to see it from a different point of view regarding the events that led to world war two. My reference to the entrance of the two superpowers into the war was to prove a point that foreign intervention is not always bad. However if what you mean to say is that, the current crisis is deeper than we think and that there is a conspiracy that moves these chains of events, to the benfit of the superpowers or one of the players in the game. Like you claim that Britain was.
Than I would understand your point better.
If so, how do you suggest to root out the true culprits and bring them to justice?
Xenthar 1
I came across a saying once about corruption and power that I cannot bring to mind right now. However it did run along these lines...With power comes corruption...with such power in it's hands that organisation which you hope to be neutral will be no different.
Sometimes the greatest evil is born of the best of intentions, but what we can put our faith in is hope. I hope that someday everything will be alright, but then again that's what we all dream of, so did the communists at their time of conception. Equality, justice and peace. It'll never work...But we can believe.
However if what you mean to say is that, the current crisis is deeper than we think and that there is a conspiracy that moves these chains of events, to the benfit of the superpowers or one of the players in the game. Like you claim that Britain was.
There's no big conspiracy about origins of WWII.
Just some screwed up strategy.
Britain wanted to direct Germany east to destroy Russia, but ended up they got dragged into war with them.
It was just stupid turn of events.
Heath: I think the Soviet Union has a lot of troubles. They are facing domestic economic difficulties and agricultural predicament, and there are also differences within the leadership, over questions of tactics and timing, not over long-term strategy.
Meat Pao
Thank you for that extremely amusing piece *Grins*, but you still haven't answered my question: "However if what you mean to say is that, the current crisis is deeper than we think and that there is a conspiracy that moves these chains of events, to the benfit of the superpowers or one of the players in the game." Inregards to the Russian-Georgia conflict.
I think that Russia is not a threat to the world. No country is. History have proven that world domination by a single nation is impossible in any context. Napolean tried, the English had tried, the Germans too, but all got deafeated in the eleventh hour.
Such a mentality is the primary reason to many conflicts and disagreements. Fear and suspicion will gradually degrade to an all-out war. The Georgia conflict is quite expected, friction will occur if two country stay close to each other for a long period of time, and judging by Georgia's history, I can understand why there would be a conflict.
However, I don't think the Russian would be rambo enough to "conquer" Georgia, this plan would surely backfire as it will face problems from the international community. Furthermore, Georgia is of no importance to the world economy, thus I don't think that the conflict would affect Singapore in any way. It is important that we stay out of their domestic affairs unless Russia should signs that it wanted global dominance, which i think is highly unlikely.
Actually the Soviet Union did assist its client states in rebuilding itself, just that the propagandas of the West are effective in instilling into us doubts about Soviet's assistance. The main reason why East Europe is economically weaker than West Europe is largely due to the fall of Soviet Union, which is their largest financial backer, rather than inconsistant fundings.
Soviet Union or USA, every leaders of every country will work towards improving the life of its citizen, though some may not be effective enough.
I think that Russia is not a threat to the world. No country is.
I think USA is a threat to peace.
American terror in Afghanistan
Originally posted by Poh Ah Pak:
Pls correct if I am wrong, but I think all these started because of the suspision between both the Taliban and the US government. Neither countries should be considered a threat. Rather, its their government which is rather, should i say skeptical, about what the opposite side is doing and got a little work up.
Crimsontactics
Are you denying our own country's colonisation? Or the fact that most of the world was carved up by the international powers less than two hundred years ago? Have you forgotten the Roman empire?
It is true that in today's world it is alot harder to conquer because other nations themselves fear to be conquered therefore they stand together to not become victims themselves.
However I do not think the issue is whether Russia or any nation is capable of being conquering the world. Rather that it was wrong for Russia to do so, plain wrong. It ignored the just about half the world to do whatever it wanted, just because it knew they couldn't do a thing about it. Look at the recent Myanma case, people are STILL suffering over there and yet, nobody has lifted a finger to help them. Do you think a nation of impoverished farmers is going to be able to win a civil war against a military regime? Nobody did anything to help them, even when the people of Myanmar were protesting against the government, ready for change. It was wrong that no one helped them, just as it is wrong that Russia invaded Georgia, in the face of international criticism, just as America was wrong in Iraq.
There also remains the mind boggoling fact that even if world domination is impossible, there have always been nut cases who would try anyways. Believe me, every side has an agenda...there is no innocent bystander or simple misunderstanding.
Neither countries should be considered a threat.
How can USA not be a threat?
They bombed so many countries, killed so many people.
They are a clear hostile and aggressive threat.
They are also hell bent on maintaining their global hegemony and wiping out any rivals.