| Author |
Message |
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
 Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 11:50 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Arina, I think I will cancel the tea invite. You believe that because newcomers(people from Caucuses especially and probably Uzbeks and Kazakhs also) have to Russia, that the prices of homes have increased 300% in 4 years, but yet the Russian population has decreased. Hmmm Interesting. Damn illegal foreigners.
That is interesting, because my friend who works for Sber Bank tells it is usually young Russian couples that are buying these properties and speculators who assume that property will continue to increase 300% every 5 years. Because why would a person buy a property instead of renting when rent is cheaper than buying? Hmmmm. People will buy property for economic reasons when they can make a profit. If they cannot make a profit from the rent, they will naturally assume they can make a profit on the future sale. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
gomer
WayToRussified
Joined: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 445
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg222
VIP
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 6:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Holmes wrote: | | Agree with Xela. He was anti gov't russia and now he is anti gov't USA and georgia. It is almost like it is different person. It was like Dennis Miller who sold out to the Republicans one day. His article is just opinion with little or not quotes or references. |
I think you'll find the common theme in his writing through the years has nothing to do with being 'anti' or 'pro' any government, but instead has been about challenging the dominant perspective of the western media. Once again, Paul, given what happened to the Exile (and the mere fact they printed Eduard Limonov's articles all through the years), it is a big stretch to try to paint the author as a pro-Russian propagandist. And I still don't understand what you dislike about that article other than it shows a different view point from your own.
The most puzzling thing for me about the reporting of this war is that no one has really questioned why Georgia attacked South Ossetia (and triggered this war) when it was guaranteed that Russia would retaliate (Russia had once again made it clear they would a few days before Georgia attacked). So did Georgia think they might get lucky - that Russia was bluffing? Or did they want to be the victim? Other possibilities? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:36 am Post subject: |
|
|
| You did not the article from Michael thomas that I linked here |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg222
VIP
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, I read it. It lost all credibility in the third paragraph when he wrote:
| Quote: | | You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. |
Apart from sounding incredibly naive, it also shows a lack of knowledge about Saakashvili's past actions. Anyway, the article merely accepts the unverifiable claim that the South Ossetian militia attacked first (or that they used bigger guns first). Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it doesn't explain why Georgia attacked South Ossetia knowing it would start a war with Russia. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Xela
VIP
Joined: 06 Jul 2005
Posts: 781
Location: Shanghai
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 1:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
In answer to darthvader's question, I think tourism figures in Moscow and St Petersburg will not be affected by this conflict. Tourism in these cities was not affected during the Chechen conflicts, and that was during a period when these cities were potential targets, so there can be no way they will be affected now.
| Quote: | | The most puzzling thing for me about the reporting of this war is that no one has really questioned why Georgia attacked South Ossetia (and triggered this war) when it was guaranteed that Russia would retaliate (Russia had once again made it clear they would a few days before Georgia attacked). So did Georgia think they might get lucky - that Russia was bluffing? Or did they want to be the victim? Other possibilities? |
How about the possibilty that South Ossetia is in Georgia and not in Russia? How about the possibility that the USSR is over, and Russians have absolutely no right whatsoever saying anything to Georgians?
This forms the basic principle. Any Russian reaction, forewarned or not, would show the world exactly how out of touch with reality Russia really is.
And it also shows how the Russians love to avoid all comparisons of Georgia taking South Ossetia back with Russia taking Chechnya back. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arina8
Frequent Guest
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 5:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Holmes wrote: | Arina, I think I will cancel the tea invite. You believe that because newcomers(people from Caucuses especially and probably Uzbeks and Kazakhs also) have to Russia, that the prices of homes have increased 300% in 4 years, but yet the Russian population has decreased. Hmmm Interesting. Damn illegal foreigners.
That is interesting, because my friend who works for Sber Bank tells it is usually young Russian couples that are buying these properties and speculators who assume that property will continue to increase 300% every 5 years. Because why would a person buy a property instead of renting when rent is cheaper than buying? Hmmmm. People will buy property for economic reasons when they can make a profit. If they cannot make a profit from the rent, they will naturally assume they can make a profit on the future sale. |
You seem to understand what you feel like understanding. I said 'we do not buy flats but we sometimes inherit them...' meaning my friends and people whom I know personally, I also said 'a lot of people from the Caucasus buy flats in Moscow' because I know a lot of people from the Caucasus who have bought flats in Moscow. Some of them are our close friends, others are not. I did not say anything about Uzbeks because I do not know anybody.
You are trying to find nationalism where there isn't any. You approve of the hatred towards Russia expressed by one person in this forum. Yet, although you quoted Likhachyov, you do not think that this hatred is nationalism. It often seems to me that for some reason you get pleasure out of the troubles of this countries.
Do you seriously think that I drink tea with strangers? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 7:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| greg222 wrote: | Yes, I read it. It lost all credibility in the third paragraph when he wrote:
| Quote: | | You should always be careful with the version of events told by someone on government payroll even when the government is as friendly and democratic as Georgia's. |
Apart from sounding incredibly naive, it also shows a lack of knowledge about Saakashvili's past actions. Anyway, the article merely accepts the unverifiable claim that the South Ossetian militia attacked first (or that they used bigger guns first). Maybe they did, maybe they didn't. Either way it doesn't explain why Georgia attacked South Ossetia knowing it would start a war with Russia. |
It does, because they are still the rightful owners of this republic and they are responsible for the citizens of this republic. When the villages were getting invaded and Russian peacekeepers did nothing and peace talks failed and plus the west would not help, they reacted and went after the separatists like the Russians went after the Chechnyans rebels who were invading Dagestan and kidnapping and so on.
Like Chechnya, who suffered, the villagers and peaceful citizens, who prospered, the Rebels. Difference is that Georgia discounted what Russia was going to do big time and that everything was prepared for this trap.
Saakshivilli was in a position that he was in a lose lose. If he allowed Rebels to continuously harass the Georgian nationals in Ossetia and be attacked by the Separatists, then he would be considered weak and eventually be kicked out. If he attacked, he might get the support of the west and be able to negotiate a peace agreement. So he gambled and lost. West promised much for Georgia and did nothing for them.
Russia also gambled and though the west would forgive them eventually, because they needed their resources and China would come to their aid. Despite Sarkozy visiting Moscow to suck Putin's dick every week, the west has been pulling their money out of Russia and China is pissed at them, because they offered independence which could effect their country.
Putin's scare tactic are not working anymore for many countries. He has been using his queen too much in this chess match. Kazakhstan and other Stans are moving closer to China, because they are nervous and China is investing heavily in their country.
Russia's biggest problem is the Oligarch who refuse to reinvest their great wealth back into the nation that gave it to them.
Also if Russia just went to the border and not invade Georgia, their image in the world would be great. But their refusal to leave and allowing the irregular thugs to attack their Georgians was not good. Putin's need for vengeance has tainted the Russian's reputation. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 8:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Arina8 wrote: | | Paul Holmes wrote: | Arina, I think I will cancel the tea invite. You believe that because newcomers(people from Caucuses especially and probably Uzbeks and Kazakhs also) have to Russia, that the prices of homes have increased 300% in 4 years, but yet the Russian population has decreased. Hmmm Interesting. Damn illegal foreigners.
That is interesting, because my friend who works for Sber Bank tells it is usually young Russian couples that are buying these properties and speculators who assume that property will continue to increase 300% every 5 years. Because why would a person buy a property instead of renting when rent is cheaper than buying? Hmmmm. People will buy property for economic reasons when they can make a profit. If they cannot make a profit from the rent, they will naturally assume they can make a profit on the future sale. |
You seem to understand what you feel like understanding. I said 'we do not buy flats but we sometimes inherit them...' meaning my friends and people whom I know personally, I also said 'a lot of people from the Caucasus buy flats in Moscow' because I know a lot of people from the Caucasus who have bought flats in Moscow. Some of them are our close friends, others are not. I did not say anything about Uzbeks because I do not know anybody.
You are trying to find nationalism where there isn't any. You approve of the hatred towards Russia expressed by one person in this forum. Yet, although you quoted Likhachyov, you do not think that this hatred is nationalism. It often seems to me that for some reason you get pleasure out of the troubles of this countries.
Do you seriously think that I drink tea with strangers? |
Again why is the price of flats increased by 300% when the population has decreased?
Should I listen to your "inheritance " theory or my friend who works for Sber bank and his thoughts based on the market trends?
When I state that the Russian(Ukrainian also) housing is over inflated, because loose rules in the financial system of these countries, you take it that I insulting Russians. Well, it just happened to the Americans and it is happening to the British also, guess what ? It is going to happen to the Russians and Ukrainians also. It is economics.
I am going to teach you some math. If company spends 500$ and earns only $300, then you subtract 500 from 300, it is a negative number. You know what they means? They are losing money. Even at the state increasing by inflation on rent, the prices of flats should only increase by 10% a year. Just like the USA and Britain, the homes in Russian are over inflated in value and there will be a serious correction.
Tea, who cares.
Please do not PM me again. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arina8
Frequent Guest
Joined: 30 Aug 2008
Posts: 27
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Holmes wrote: | | Arina8 wrote: | | Paul Holmes wrote: | Arina, I think I will cancel the tea invite. You believe that because newcomers(people from Caucuses especially and probably Uzbeks and Kazakhs also) have to Russia, that the prices of homes have increased 300% in 4 years, but yet the Russian population has decreased. Hmmm Interesting. Damn illegal foreigners.
That is interesting, because my friend who works for Sber Bank tells it is usually young Russian couples that are buying these properties and speculators who assume that property will continue to increase 300% every 5 years. Because why would a person buy a property instead of renting when rent is cheaper than buying? Hmmmm. People will buy property for economic reasons when they can make a profit. If they cannot make a profit from the rent, they will naturally assume they can make a profit on the future sale. |
You seem to understand what you feel like understanding. I said 'we do not buy flats but we sometimes inherit them...' meaning my friends and people whom I know personally, I also said 'a lot of people from the Caucasus buy flats in Moscow' because I know a lot of people from the Caucasus who have bought flats in Moscow. Some of them are our close friends, others are not. I did not say anything about Uzbeks because I do not know anybody.
You are trying to find nationalism where there isn't any. You approve of the hatred towards Russia expressed by one person in this forum. Yet, although you quoted Likhachyov, you do not think that this hatred is nationalism. It often seems to me that for some reason you get pleasure out of the troubles of this countries.
Do you seriously think that I drink tea with strangers? |
Again why is the price of flats increased by 300% when the population has decreased?
Should I listen to your "inheritance " theory or my friend who works for Sber bank and his thoughts based on the market trends?
When I state that the Russian(Ukrainian also) housing is over inflated, because loose rules in the financial system of these countries, you take it that I insulting Russians. Well, it just happened to the Americans and it is happening to the British also, guess what ? It is going to happen to the Russians and Ukrainians also. It is economics.
I am going to teach you some math. If company spends 500$ and earns only $300, then you subtract 500 from 300, it is a negative number. You know what they means? They are losing money. Even at the state increasing by inflation on rent, the prices of flats should only increase by 10% a year. Just like the USA and Britain, the homes in Russian are over inflated in value and there will be a serious correction.
Tea, who cares.
Please do not PM me again. |
Nice to talk to a well-bred person. Your knowledge of Maths is also a valuable asset. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Wed Sep 10, 2008 10:43 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Arina, when the Kursk submarine went down, Russia never asked for help, then they just let the men die a horrible death. This is the Russian Gov't attitude and yours also. It is better to hide your mistakes and keep your pride, then actually ask for help.
Who cares about lives as long you can keep your pride. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
greg222
VIP
Joined: 15 Feb 2005
Posts: 599
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 7:25 am Post subject: |
|
|
So I take it you think they were calling Russia's bluff and thought they would get more backing from the West? Probably you're right. Personally, I think that was incredibly reckless.
| Paul Holmes wrote: | When the villages were getting invaded and Russian peacekeepers did nothing and peace talks failed and plus the west would not help, they reacted and went after the separatists like the Russians went after the Chechnyans rebels who were invading Dagestan and kidnapping and so on.
Like Chechnya, who suffered, the villagers and peaceful citizens, who prospered, the Rebels. Difference is that Georgia discounted what Russia was going to do big time and that everything was prepared for this trap. |
Ok, once again though, there is no concrete evidence as to who started the skirmishes in South Ossetia before Georgia's attack. And there's about as much evidence of Russia setting a 'trap' as there is to Putin's claim about the USA's involvement. You're simply choosing to believe one side of the story.
The question remains why Georgia resorted to military action so quickly and indeed so forcefully. Had diplomatic measures failed? From what I can see they had hardly been tried. Was the situation in South Ossetia prior to August 7th so bad that Georgia really had no choice? Again, there is little evidence of this.
A fact that received little attention: before Russia retaliated they went to the UN to look for a solution. I can't find much information about that meeting, except that the sticking point appeared to be that Russia wanted Georgia to renounce the use of force. It would be nice if more details of the meeting had been reported.
| Paul Holmes wrote: | | Saakshivilli was in a position that he was in a lose lose. If he allowed Rebels to continuously harass the Georgian nationals in Ossetia and be attacked by the Separatists, then he would be considered weak and eventually be kicked out. If he attacked, he might get the support of the west and be able to negotiate a peace agreement. So he gambled and lost. West promised much for Georgia and did nothing for them. |
Meanwhile, you might like to consider the lose/lose situation that Russia was in. Do nothing and appear weak or act and raise the ire of the West. I'm not sure what great benefits for Russia there have been in this conflict.
For the record, I agree that Russia's actions are hypocritical. But there is hypocrisy on all sides here. Another legitimate criticism might be that Russia's response was disproportionate. I don't know - it was a war after all. But if someone wanted to argue that I wouldn't object.
But I don't accept the idea that Russia was the aggressor. And it bothers me that the Western press has reported that more or less as fact when it clearly isn't. I don't think it's due to bias as such, just plain laziness more than anything.
Something else: we all heard Condoleezza Rice saying, "This isn't 1968", and I think someone made the same comparison in this thread. But why didn't we ever hear the Czech President rubbishing any such comparison? Actually, his comments are some of the most balanced and reasonable of any world leader's. It's worth reading:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Ender
WayToRussified
Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 498
Location: Urals
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:29 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Paul Holmes wrote: | Arina, when the Kursk submarine went down, Russia never asked for help, then they just let the men die a horrible death. This is the Russian Gov't attitude and yours also. It is better to hide your mistakes and keep your pride, then actually ask for help.
Who cares about lives as long you can keep your pride. |
I cannot refrain from comment here. Latest events show that it is pointless.
Russian government asked for help in the case of Georgia-Ossetia war. Immediately after the war started. Please name the country that condemned actions of Georgia (I'm fully aware there are plenty of countries that condemned similar actions of Russia in Chechnya)? First we asked to help to solve problem in a peaceful style, second we send tanks and infantry. One phone call from Bush or Rice to Saakashvili and war stops. One word from EU (which Saakashvili loves so much) and war stops. It is ridiculous that U.S. didn't know that Georgia is going to start the war in S. Ossetia. Russian intelligence knew, russian army was prepared, russian authorities warned everyone but Georgia's closest friends weren't aware. Whom did they try to decieve?
Why? Because they didn't want to stop the war. Only when Russia intervened they started to whine. Why? Because everything that creates problems for Russia is good, weak Russia is good, weak-willed Russia better, Russia with disrupted economy and army - excelent. Look at yourself - everywhere I see your latest posts you talking how bad Russian economic is, how bad our authorities are, how nicely oligarchs should be treated, etc, etc, etc. We are aware about our own problems. I have impression that you simply enjoy talking all this. The main problem of EU, U.S. is that there is a new generation of Russians is growing. They are used to distrust the West. Those who believed that west could be a friend now are changing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 9:39 am Post subject: |
|
|
| greg222 wrote: | So I take it you think they were calling Russia's bluff and thought they would get more backing from the West? Probably you're right. Personally, I think that was incredibly reckless.
| Paul Holmes wrote: | When the villages were getting invaded and Russian peacekeepers did nothing and peace talks failed and plus the west would not help, they reacted and went after the separatists like the Russians went after the Chechnyans rebels who were invading Dagestan and kidnapping and so on.
Like Chechnya, who suffered, the villagers and peaceful citizens, who prospered, the Rebels. Difference is that Georgia discounted what Russia was going to do big time and that everything was prepared for this trap. |
Ok, once again though, there is no concrete evidence as to who started the skirmishes in South Ossetia before Georgia's attack. And there's about as much evidence of Russia setting a 'trap' as there is to Putin's claim about the USA's involvement. You're simply choosing to believe one side of the story.
The question remains why Georgia resorted to military action so quickly and indeed so forcefully. Had diplomatic measures failed? From what I can see they had hardly been tried. Was the situation in South Ossetia prior to August 7th so bad that Georgia really had no choice? Again, there is little evidence of this.
A fact that received little attention: before Russia retaliated they went to the UN to look for a solution. I can't find much information about that meeting, except that the sticking point appeared to be that Russia wanted Georgia to renounce the use of force. It would be nice if more details of the meeting had been reported.
| Paul Holmes wrote: | | Saakshivilli was in a position that he was in a lose lose. If he allowed Rebels to continuously harass the Georgian nationals in Ossetia and be attacked by the Separatists, then he would be considered weak and eventually be kicked out. If he attacked, he might get the support of the west and be able to negotiate a peace agreement. So he gambled and lost. West promised much for Georgia and did nothing for them. |
Meanwhile, you might like to consider the lose/lose situation that Russia was in. Do nothing and appear weak or act and raise the ire of the West. I'm not sure what great benefits for Russia there have been in this conflict.
For the record, I agree that Russia's actions are hypocritical. But there is hypocrisy on all sides here. Another legitimate criticism might be that Russia's response was disproportionate. I don't know - it was a war after all. But if someone wanted to argue that I wouldn't object.
But I don't accept the idea that Russia was the aggressor. And it bothers me that the Western press has reported that more or less as fact when it clearly isn't. I don't think it's due to bias as such, just plain laziness more than anything.
Something else: we all heard Condoleezza Rice saying, "This isn't 1968", and I think someone made the same comparison in this thread. But why didn't we ever hear the Czech President rubbishing any such comparison? Actually, his comments are some of the most balanced and reasonable of any world leader's. It's worth reading:
http://www.ceskenoviny.cz/news/index_view.php?id=328282
|
Russia was not considered the aggressor until they invaded Georgia and stayed. If they pushed Georgia out and left it that, then the west could not say anything. But why invade and why stay and why declare their independence? Wrong decision.
I think we have a battle of egos. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul-Holmes
Lounge Wizard
Joined: 12 Apr 2005
Posts: 1073
|
| Posted: Thu Sep 11, 2008 10:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I cannot refrain from comment here. Latest events show that it is pointless. |
Because you are a nationalist and you live on Gasprom News.
| Quote: | | Russian government asked for help in the case of Georgia-Ossetia war. Immediately after the war started. Please name the country that condemned actions of Georgia (I'm fully aware there are plenty of countries that condemned similar actions of Russia in Chechnya)? First we asked to help to solve problem in a peaceful style, second we send tanks and infantry. One phone call from Bush or Rice to Saakashvili and war stops. One word from EU (which Saakashvili loves so much) and war stops. It is ridiculous that U.S. didn't know that Georgia is going to start the war in S. Ossetia. Russian intelligence knew, russian army was prepared, russian authorities warned everyone but Georgia's closest friends weren't aware. Whom did they try to decieve? |
How the press were being shot at by Ossetian Irregular troops? Where the reporters in this area now?
I love this comparison to the USA. Everything you say is about the USA. Did one American soldier invade Ossetia? Did the USA invade Georgia?
No, American is to busy trying to find out Sarah Palin's bra size. Saakshavilli, well like everyone said here. We can understand why he made a scene, that is to make attention to the west about his country, but complete invasion was just stupid. Russia to retaliate to rid the Georgia was reasonable, but to occupy and refuse to leave was just stupid.
| Quote: | | Why? Because they didn't want to stop the war. Only when Russia intervened they started to whine. Why? Because everything that creates problems for Russia is good, weak Russia is good, weak-willed Russia better, Russia with disrupted economy and army - excelent. Look at yourself - everywhere I see your latest posts you talking how bad Russian economic is, how bad our authorities are, how nicely oligarchs should be treated, etc, etc, etc. We are aware about our own problems. I have impression that you simply enjoy talking all this. The main problem of EU, U.S. is that there is a new generation of Russians is growing. They are used to distrust the West. Those who believed that west could be a friend now are changing. |
Really my country does not give a rat ass about Russia. Really, we everything you have plus more. WE do not need your oil, gas, Iron ore, or anything. Everytime we try to do business, you have some bureaucracy issue to steal (why oligrachs show up in my country with fucking guns like some fucking gangsters) and that is why money is flowing outside Russia. You do not trust the west, who gives a shit. The world does not trust Russia. The world does revolve around Russia or the USA |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
