hohto

At mathematics and literature you're far away from "good" or even "ok" with the western standards. http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2008016 Again depending on what's pretty good. If you ask me, the US healthcare does work but only if you're ready to pay for it. If you can't afford it, you're in problems. There are multiple articles on the subject, but here's one link for exmaple. http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/200 ... care_N.htm

People were saying exactly the same about World War I after it ended, but it still didn't take long to start WWII :roll: Back in WW1 and WW2 the weapons were so much weaker. Both sides got got enough nuclear weapons to destroy this planet multiple side and if it went into a fullscale war, there soon would be no man to witness the next war.

The T-model made Fort what it is now. Last time I was looking for a car to buy I didn't see any for sale however. Should I complain to Ford or actually take a time thinking why they don't sell them anymore? Hmm... Maybe the same reasons and principals could apply in RSC too? First of all, RSC is just a waste of money to Jagex now. The number of active players who only pay RSC is relatively low and with the server costs, customer support (cc billing for example) and real work wasted on it Jagex most likely is barely breaking even with it. Add that to the cheap and illegal "private servers", small legal player "community" and constant begging for RSC it's a huge surprise that they didn't close it one year ago.

Logistically Russia got a huge edge down there. By troops in total Russia has around one million soldiers more, that includes reserves. By raw numbers Russia got more nukes than you, however not like it really matters in the numbers you and they got them. You may have a lot bigger budget and more advanced technology, but if it went into a full scale war between US and Russia (theoretical scenario), it would be a war to end all wars and a war without any winners. Your budget this year was over 583 billion usd. Btw the unit cost for F-22 Raptor is 137,5 million usd according to Wikipedia. Good thing it's not my tax money that's used on that budget or those planes, would rather see my money floading into education and health care :P Haha of course :P was just remembering the finnish word "rekyyli" :geek:

We were comparing AK-47 and M16 there, I know some of the russian made assault rifles are 5,56 or 5,45 now :P However for example Finland still uses 7,62 on our RK-62 and RK-95 which are based on AK-47 technology. AK-101 uses 5,56, ak-103 is basically the same rifle with 7,62. AK-107 and 108 use different mechanisms to get a lesse recyle (sp?) than those rifles. Btw I'm relatively sure Russia still uses AK-47's at least on some units. That's based on my memory though so I might be wrong on it.

Currently M16's are more reliable than back in Vietnam, However I don't know how well they'd go in extreme conditions in comparison to ak-47 based assault rifles. However the bullet size in M16 is not as great for close combats as AK-47 bullets. The 5,56mm usually wounds the enemy in a way that he can shoot back at you while 7,62mm usually makes him unable to keep firing. That could have saved some troops in Iraq too. If any bigger conflict started, Russia would definately be in it too. Within last 5 years their military budget has rosen a lot and many things they did during USSR are now back in action, including "check flights" with heavy bombers near Guam, etc.

Dude? Are you serious? Finland's budget is 2.8 billion and we're ranked 43th on that list. Finland and Georgia got almost the same amount of people and Georgia has had to build their army from pretty much nothing while we don't need to do new investions every year. If you ask me, Georgia's growth has been surprisingly slow and far away from challenging a country that has more everything and for example 45 times bigger budget? Btw with the 30m usd you'd rank currently to place 143, barely over Togo. Are you claiming that a country that has been on the stage of civil war for over a decade and has a lot of boarder with Russia should stay at that?

Georgia: population in 2004 = 4 661 473 Russia: total troops in 2008 = 3,796,100 Without any collective security systems (not always necessary a military) there's no chances smaller nations could have any realistic dreams of peace. There is a reason why markets are being tied together even sometimes at the cost of efficency, why people are giving support (again, not only arms or tropps) to nations like Georgia and so on. The best way to provide peace is to make make the price to high but without a risk of accidents.

Georgia, EU and ETYJ have have created one sketch of a possible peace deal they are bringing to Moscow. Georgia is definately in need of a quick peace and it wouldn't be a miracle if they just gave away all the rebellious areas. The discussions are meant to start today with Lavrov and tomorrow with Putin and Medvedev. The "georgian" side is supposed to be the finnish foreignministry Stubb and French Kouchner. It's still unclear (or at least was when I last time checked) will georgian Tkeshelasvili attend. Good thing that the EU has taken a strong role here in order to restore peace. Btw there's already a conspiracy theory going on that Georgia would have done this in order to get rid of South Ossetia and Abkhasia. The reason would be that it would be a political suicide to just give them to Russia and NATO countries aren't allowed to have "boarder conflicts". Sounds pretty farfetched though, seeing that Russia definately wouldn't want to take those parts in exchange to get a new NATO country just behind its boarders and the risks for Gerogia are so high that the decicion couldn't have been made by them only. Saakashvili already said today that Russia is aiming to change the goverment of Georgia. The aim of this would naturally be a russophilic goverment and the result you're talking about.

Get a genie lamp/xp lamp/book of knowledge and get it in some random place.

Only things USA can do is to judge the war (already done) and give minor support to Georgia. Anyone whose IQ is high enough to be able to read should realise really quickly that USA even can't help in the form of an attack: the cost of helping would be a lot bigger than even the worst case scenario in Georgia or boarder countries. It's also been said multiple times in his thread so why to bring it up at page 4 once again?

The prime minister Putin is Bush's personal friend. USA and Russia have had hard times within last few years due many separate reasons (missile shield, Iran, etc) but it hasn't affected too badly to personal relations. Yea most likely they also got into case Georgia but for how far will that reach?

Having an outdoor poo in -35c. Gotta love the winter camps in Finnish army, especially the ones which last for few weeks. Note, that wasn't the only "stomach emptying progress" in -30c or colder.

South Ossetia has been on the stage of civil war for a while now, mainly due the aid gotten from Russia. There was international peacekeepers for a reason and imo an armed conflict that can't be solved through diplomacy (was tried for over a decade) must be handled in a way or another. I'd also like to see newsclips of an event that even the russian media hasn't shown. Tbilisi is the capital of Georgia, not a rebellious area. So you accept first throwing gasoline to the flames (what Russia has been doing in South Ossetia for a while) in another country's soil? First of all they were planting the seeds of an armed conflict in another country's soil, for the second they are now using it to gain benefits which extend far behind Georgia's boarders.

A) Russia already is or at least is close of being a super power. Depends how you measure it, but with this economical growth, size, military and policy it already is acting like one. It doesn't need the forner USSR areas, it is strong enough now and doesn't need big minorities to cause problems. B) I do not accept same kind of international policy as the former ussr had, where current Russia is going to and what USA has been doing since the end of WW2. The case might be different for those who live far enough from Russia but at least I don't want t to see the political pressure they've given to their neightbours for ages. C) The more we have struggles, the unsafer this place is. My country has suffered already enough from the games USA and USSR played and now are suffering from Russia's actions. Same is for every other boarder country, if they even were independed. The secold cold war (Where it looks like we're heading) is a thing we don't want to see. D) Just because we have one, it doesn't mean we should get more or accept the existance of just one.

Exactly. We can forget the talks about "liberating" certain areas of Georgia: it's not even close of being the main reason why russians are there. Btw. Georgia pulled their athletes back from Beijing.There's been speculation should Russia be put out too due breaking ekekheria. edit: Georgia decided to keep their atheletes in China.

If their plan had been to "liberate" South Ossetia like they're claiming, that would have happened. Anyone who can think with their own brains can and should come into the conclusion that Russia is there to fight for their own benefits. These benefits are at least: - Giving a clear sign to other boarder countries what's their opinion on NATO. - Securing the thing that has made it possible for Russia to get back into their feed from the economical crash tha happened around 10 years ago: oil. - Showing that they are back in business to USA and ready to act if it's needed. There's also been discussion if one reason (however not the main) was to increase the oil price. A conflict in an important area causes a jump in the prices and that benefits Russia more than a lot. Note: it's almost a sure thing they considered this side too but we can only speculate did it play any role when they decided to attack.

There's no proof about any cleanings, genocides or who knows what. I've gone through multiple Russian (yea, like it would make any difference to read 10 russian pages instead of 1) and so far there's been no proof of it happening. For the second, Russia has been arming rebel groups in South Ossetia for months, they've had a few month practice right behind the boarder and their verbal thematic towards Georgia changed a lot around the same time Georgia had gotten into talks about NATO. Add that to the loose giving of passports and you got the picture: this war was planned months ago. Of course Russia is trying to justify the war with noble and loyal phrases, there's nothing abnormal in that. USA's forces won't jump into the fire. Georgia and under 5 million people aren't worth the war against Russia and Russia knows this really well. However at least McCain and Bush have already disagreed with Russia's policy. NATO won't do a thing: first of all Georgia isn't part of it and the risk of WW3 would be far too big. For UN and EU the only things they can do is to judge the war and try to solve it through diplomatics. Seeing how Russia plays a huge part in the economical and sociological field in the middle Europe (for example supplying Germany with a lot of gas, etc) it's almost a 100% sure thing that EU won't even set trade limits to Russia. According to some sources they have already started bombing the capital. I'm trying to get a better source to it tho.

Abkhasia just joined the front against Georgia. The russian goal at least in my eyes is not to control whole Georgia but to set into into same kind of proxy condition as USSR did for hungary or Poland for example. I'd also like to point out that the war is in the beginning and the bombings of Tbilisi may happen any day or hour. edit: How ironic, I said days or hours and then few hours later this came up: http://www.newstin.co.uk/tag/uk/73117669 If I'm not mistaken, Russia has already sent more than those 150 t80s. Georgia's soil also isn't as good for tank battles as the deserts in the near east for example, not to mention that Georgia's tank forces are really limited and rather old. For example their best attackive tanks are t-72s which were made in 1970s. By raw power Russia is already a lot stronger than Georgia. edit: Russia has given the nationality with really loose standards to many south ossetians within last few months. This is just one way for them to "defend russians" like Medvedev was claiming.

According to the president of Georgia it's now a war and not a conflict. Thus I decided to remove the question mark from the title. edit: If I didn't see wrong, Russia has started to bring T-90s to the warfield. Yesterday saw only oldish t-80s (newer than georgian tanks tho) being there. One reason could be that T-90s were located in 5th guards area near Mongolia and transporting them took few hours longer to come than for the T-80s that were right behind the boarder. I might have mistaken like I said, but so it seemed. So far the russians have dragged up russian flags to the conquered areas, for example to the police station. This looks pretty much weird if they were fighting for the independence of South Ossetia like some were claiming. Was pretty funny to watch Russia Today's english broadcast this morning. According to them the western media is black and white. If that's the case, then what's russian media? Totally black? Btw in the same broadcast Shaakasvili was called at least "the beast", "dog" and "parasite of Caucasus". Pretty rough text for even russian media...

Exactly, so why to bring up the point of them duying? My point is that morally the independence of Kosovo was a lot easier to accept than this one is. Nothing related the kosovians to Serbia but south ossetians are related to Georgia. Technically this is the same thing as New York trying to become an independent area. Excuse me? If certain people in certain area want independency, it's ok for a lot bigger neightbour to roll their tanks over the boarder? No country accepted it when they declared it. Not even Russia. Lets see.... - This case is a lot bigger than just independency. Russia got a lot larger stakes than just growing up their territory. - This new aggression is same time a clear note to other boarder countries and thus affecting into their international policy more than any talks in cabins. China and Zimbabwe are on a different role at their conflict areas. - I personally rather believe in Sweden building nuclear weapons than Russia marching to free Tibet without any plans to get advantages of it. You know it too that your scenario got almost zero chances to happen or when it does, this planet is in so big chaos that it doesn't even matter.

You pretty much gave the answer in your second chapter. If you want a change, you have to get a ground where it can grow. A new party/parties don't just come out by the decicion of the currently dominant parties, the seed of new one(s) must be planted if you want a change. That won't happen by supporting the dominant parties and without a properly arranged movement/organization/party/whatever you wanna call it. Every vote you give to republicans or democrats is away from the other choice(s) and it benefits the wrong people if you want to get the 3rd party you talked about. Things don't change at the political field by dreams or wishes, they change due actions. If you hope to get a 3rd big party but vote for the two main ones, your hope won't be anything else than just a hope. Voting is the first step to get some recognisation to the other parties. Without that no proper fundings are realistic. People who fund politicians are looking to benefit from it in form or another and if there is no power behing a party, there's no real reason to put a lot of money into it. For Arnold Average even one vote to the right party is more than can be asked. The active people are the ones who do the ground work but that really wasn't my point. My point was that Arnold Average should do even the most minimal thing he can (aka vote) if he wants the change. If we look places where a real change has happened, it always has followed the same kind of path. People have realised things are wrong or not working as well as they could, the active workers have organized the movement and people have shown their support through small things: votings, demonstrations and so on. That's how Poland got their democracy, that's how Estonia got their freedom and that's how many others got what they wanted.

Russia has been arming the rebels for a while now and according to some sources even over 1400 civilians have died in the conflict. If the russian style of bombing civilian targets like Kakha Lomaina (secretary of the Georgian safety councell) said is the way to react towards accidents in a battlefield (guess that's the right word for the situation in South Ossetia and its rebels. Should Finland for example go to war when our peacekeepers die in the battlefields somewhere else? I already stated in the beginning of the topic that they were there with the permission of UN. If that makes it sound like that, I'm sorry. Btw in 2006 Georgia wanted international peacekeepers instead of Russians. The point is to drag the publicity out of Georgia. Every word said about the (upcoming) war is a bad thing for Russia and the more the media goes into Obama-McCain, the better chances there are for them to get out of it without the same kind of hassle Iraq for example has caused to USA. Ethnically Kosovo wasn't part of Serbia. However s-ossetians are georgians even when Russia prints them new passports as quickly as they can. Also how many tanks were send to Serbia when Kosovo declared its autonomy? How many civilians were killed by foreign forces? When Kosovo declared their independency, they got a nice list of countries accepting it. When South Ossetia declared theirs, not even Russia accepted it. Also from Russia's point there a lot more in stake that it didn't just happen due few peacekeepers or the will to help one segment of people get their independence. edit: At least at the moment all the "important" georgian websites starting from the presidential, govermental and policy sites are down. Russia already had this kind weboffensives during the statue conflict.

It wasn't a coindence that the conflict was started the same day as the olympics. Russia had had practices just behind be boarder for months (which is a really long for a normal practice), they've prepared the homefield with their "chosen news" and with the olympics + USA's presidential elections this conflict got a better chances to cause virtually no organised opposition in the western countries.

With that kind of attitude nothing will change. With virtually no support the so called smaller parties (imo they are virtually unexistant) can't even grow and challenge the main parties. Voting for them is a vote for better future, even though it may not be seen in the next few elections.