Double irony. Science is not an invention either. Science is a discipline which encompasses many inventions (or more appropriately named "discoveries" usually), but it is not an invention in and of itself.

Lol. Irony. Electricity wasn't an invention either. Just like fire, it was discovered and harnessed, not invented.

The printing press, because it allowed everyone to record their thoughts, innovations, and imaginations easily and transfer that knowledge to others.

How stella got her groove back between your legs.

USA won't battle Russia because we're trying to restore broken relations with them, they have huge oil supplies (and natural gas...ahem...Europe), and they are a huge bargaining chip in our talks with Iran. If we piss them off, we're frustrating a lot of our international goals.

The point I was trying to make was that Russia did not simply attack Georgia out of the blue, as everyone seems to think. They were supporting an independent region (Ossetia, particularly South Ossetia), they encountered hostile force from a separate country (Georgia) while they were in that separate region, and reacted to that.

People keep acting like Russia just said "****, let's attack Georgia."

I'm not worried about anyone's opinions. It really doesn't matter to me whether anyone here thinks that Russia was right or wrong, or whether they think that the US was right or wrong not to intervene (yet). Those are opinions and should be respected.

I'm just trying to clarify the situation about which region is involved, its standing with relation to Georgia and Russia, and the pretenses which (supposedly) started the conflict. No judgment or "holier than thou" attitude here...to each their own.

Georgia was not the region in question. The region is South Ossetia. It is an AUTONOMOUS republic within the territorial boundaries of Georgia. It used to be part of Russia until it broke away. Many of its citizens want to reunite with Russia, as evidenced by the fact that there have been continuous pro-Russian insurgencies there for a long time. Some of them want to remain their own country. Others want to meld with Georgia. This is the conflicting mix of opinions which make it impossible to discern a true "right" answer for the freedom to be "happy".


From the Boston Globe:

"On Thursday, August 7th, Georgian armed forces entered into the breakaway region of South Ossetia to assert Georgian governance of the region - a de facto (yet largely unrecognized) independent republic that has support from neighboring Russia. Russia responded on August 8th by sending its own military into Georgia - not only into region of South Ossetia - but also into the nearby breakaway republic of Abkhazia and deeper into Georgia itself."

http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2008/08/war_in_south_ossetia.html

The inherent problem is how do you define what makes the people happy and free. The region of South Ossetia is comprised of three types of desires: Those who wish to remain autonomous, those who wish to rejoin with Russia, and those who want to be annexed into Georgia. Who's right? Are any of them right or wrong? The right to be happy and free isn't clear cut.

There aren't enough words to describe how many nuances there are which make the two situations very, very different.

That being said, I agree that there are some generalities which share a common thread with the two.

I'll "rumor" YOU!

not me!

It's a lot easier to BECOME single than to avoid it!

Hahaha, the proverbial "-ish!"

Congratulations (-ish)

What an excellent suggestion!

Yeah I know the drill when I have big things to move. I just have a lot of little things, and a table and desk. I can do it all myself, I just wanted to be dramatic and whine about it a little.

solitaryman - A "bummer" sticker?? I don't even WANT to know where you stick that one!

Cheerleaders will be accepted, but only after visual inspection!

I gotta move all my stuff into my new apartment.

Any volunteers?

Innuendo?



I have no idea what you're talkin about!

Well, after reading over the last 5 pages of disheartening name calling, I can see that the topic has degraded itself into nothing but baseless insults. Hopefully one of these days people will realize that you can disagree without being right or wrong (even when both people are working with the same facts).

When it comes to war with Russia, I don't think there's a clear answer. My personal opinion is that it would be a very close conflict, although there is certainly evidence which supports the opposing view as well. I do dispute anyone who claims it would be "easy", but again there is no way to prove or disprove that.

As for the person who mentioned that this thread turned into a worthless "who could kick who's ass" thread...I think that it was a pretty informative thread. Nothing like some good controversy to enlighten people. Sure it got a little ugly, and of course the sources have to be weighed (how do we know which news reports to trust), but it was intellectually stimulating, and that's worth a lot.

Chaz - Thanks for the civility and intelligent debate. Congrats on the job and good luck.