Tēma: Karš Eiropā

Kopš: 08. Mar 2007

No: Rīga

Ziņojumi: 4476

Braucu ar:

Kopš: 06. Apr 2006

Ziņojumi: 2062

Braucu ar: Auto

Kopš: 10. Aug 2006

No: Rīga

Ziņojumi: 11581

Braucu ar: Cayenne S, B6 cabrio; Suzuki SV1000s

Kopš: 15. Nov 2007

Ziņojumi: 16576

Braucu ar:

Kopš: 29. Nov 2004

Ziņojumi: 13859

Braucu ar: sipisnīku pi vuškom

Kopš: 25. Jul 2008

No: Rīga

Ziņojumi: 991

Braucu ar:

Kopš: 15. Nov 2007

Ziņojumi: 16576

Braucu ar:

25 Aug 2008, 22:48:39 Fandulis rakstīja:
Jep skatos. Tikko labs bija: "Otkuda vilka, vilka otkuda?"

Un tā utu reklāma galina nost Bļa jūtos kaukā tizli, tipo jāgaida drīz būs vai kā to saprast tipo jau ir un dokuja

[ Šo ziņu laboja HeyTolsty, 25 Aug 2008, 23:03:01 ]

Kopš: 15. Oct 2007

Ziņojumi: 12780

Braucu ar: xc40

25 Aug 2008, 22:48:39 Fandulis rakstīja:
Jep skatos. Tikko labs bija: "Otkuda vilka, vilka otkuda?"

Un tā utu reklāma galina nost Bļa jūtos kaukā tizli, tipo jāgaida drīz būs vai kā to saprast tipo jau ir un dokuja

Kopš: 09. Jan 2008

No: Daugavpils

Ziņojumi: 3763

Braucu ar:

Kopš: 08. May 2003

No: Jūrmala

Ziņojumi: 7428

Braucu ar: ne BMW

Kopš: 09. Jan 2008

No: Daugavpils

Ziņojumi: 3763

Braucu ar:

25 Aug 2008, 23:16:49 Instigater rakstīja:
http://www.vilochka.com/

Tikai tagad kaut kaada tur operaacija notiekas.

Kopš: 29. Nov 2004

Ziņojumi: 13859

Braucu ar: sipisnīku pi vuškom

25 Aug 2008, 23:04:38 shmurger rakstīja:

25 Aug 2008, 22:48:39 Fandulis rakstīja:
Jep skatos. Tikko labs bija: "Otkuda vilka, vilka otkuda?"

Un tā utu reklāma galina nost Bļa jūtos kaukā tizli, tipo jāgaida drīz būs vai kā to saprast tipo jau ir un dokuja

utu reklaama?? kas taa taada?

Kopš: 08. May 2003

No: Jūrmala

Ziņojumi: 7428

Braucu ar: ne BMW

Kopš: 26. Dec 2002

Ziņojumi: 14865

Braucu ar:

25 Aug 2008, 22:49:56 Rih rakstīja:
http://www.tvnet.lv/zinas/latvija/article.php?id=559351

Jā es tiešam domaaju, ka medvedevs paklausis banaanrepublikai Latvijai un neatdziis šīs valstis.

Kopš: 26. Dec 2002

Ziņojumi: 14865

Braucu ar:

The Economist, Aug23, 2008:


FROM Brussels this week NATO brandished a fist at Russia, warning it that there could be no “business as
usual” so long as Russian forces remained in Georgia. The Russians, oddly, did not quail. If anything,
President Dmitry Medvedev and his mentor and prime minister, Vladimir Putin, seem to be enjoying the
world’s impotent indignation in the face of their new-found machismo. And why not? They know that the West
will not fight for the territorial integrity of Georgia, a trisected statelet of only 4m people in the faraway
Caucasus. They also know that they will face no serious economic punishment. As a collective, NATO may huff
and puff, but the cold fact is that many of its big members need a lot of business with Russia to continue.
Germany and others in Europe need to keep buying Russia’s oil and gas. America needs Russia, too, in order
to secure vital foreign-policy objectives of its own, such as preventing Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.
Does this mean that Russia will get away with its smash-and-grab operation? In one sense it does. Russia’s
intentions were unclear this week; it drove some tanks here and there for the benefit of the cameras (see
article). But if it is determined to keep its forces in Georgia proper despite the ceasefire agreement brokered
by France, Germany and America, it is hard to see what any outsider can do about it. Georgia’s dispute with
Russia would then once again become a “frozen” conflict, except with different de facto borders.
The wider aims with which Russia is presumed to have entered Georgia have not yet been achieved, however.
They include toppling its pro-American president, Mikheil Saakashvili, and using intimidation to stop Georgia
and Ukraine from following the Poles, Czechs, Balts and other former dominions of the Soviet Union into the
orbit of the West and thence into NATO. If it pursues sound policies, the West still stands a fair chance,
despite its divisions, of thwarting these aims.
Sound policy starts with a sense of proportion. Contrary to some excitable first reactions, Russia’s ability to
crush the minuscule Georgian army does not make it a superpower, and its aggression in the Caucasus need
not mark the start of a new cold war. To put things in perspective, America’s GDP is ten times bigger than
Russia’s and it spends at least seven times more on defence. Russia’s economy would fall off a cliff if energy
prices slumped and its population, racked by ill-health and inequality, is shrinking by up to 800,000 a year.
Russia can make mischief, but it cannot project military and ideological power all around the world, as the
Soviet Union did during the cold war. Although it scares some neighbours (but not the Chinese), its threats
make them all the more determined to stay on guard. It is surely no coincidence that after months of
prevarication the Poles agreed immediately after Russia invaded Georgia to let America base missile defences
(ostensibly against a future threat from Iran) on Polish territory.
To say that Russia’s strength is exaggerated is not to say that it should be allowed to escape its Georgian
adventure unpunished. A weak power can be more reckless than a strong one. Russia needs to learn that in
spite of their own enervating foreign wars and economic worries the members of the Western alliance can still
unite in front of a challenge. But because Russia is fundamentally less strong than it likes to pretend, the
Copyright © 2008 The Economist Newspaper and The Economist Group. All rights reserved.
West’s response can afford to be patient as well as principled.
One principle the West must insist on is the legitimacy of Georgia’s government. However foolish Mr
Saakashvili was to give Russia a pretext for invasion, he should stay in office until Georgians themselves
throw him out. Another principle is the right of any country, even if it is a former Soviet vassal in what Russia
still counts as its own sphere of influence, to ask to join NATO. Naturally, the alliance should not admit
members who are unready, or for whom it is not in the end willing to fight. On this test, Georgia might never
get in. But to give Russia a veto would be to mock the sovereignty of small countries.


As to patience, suspending business as usual should not be pushed to the point that drives Russia into the sort
of sulk that will make its behaviour worse. Finding the line between disapproval, pressure and continued
engagement will be hard. Too much concern for the hurt feelings of a fallen empire could be misread as
weakness and so encourage further bullying. But there is vital work to be done—on nuclear proliferation and
arms reduction, for example—in which the need for co-operation with Russia simply outweighs the need to
punish it.
So Russia will keep its tanks in Georgia if it wants to. But the longer it does so, the less Europe will want to
rely on Russia for its energy, the longer it will wait to join the World Trade Organisation, the more hostile the
next American president will be and the more its nervous neighbours will be tempted to turn to the West for
safety. The job now is to explain to Russia that this may not have been such a victory for machismo, after all.

[ Šo ziņu laboja Raicha, 26 Aug 2008, 10:38:29 ]

Kopš: 02. May 2005

No: Rīga

Ziņojumi: 4397

Braucu ar: ar uguns dzēšamo aparātu

Kopš: 26. Dec 2002

Ziņojumi: 14865

Braucu ar:

[ Šo ziņu laboja Raicha, 26 Aug 2008, 11:26:24 ]

Kopš: 02. May 2005

No: Rīga

Ziņojumi: 4397

Braucu ar: ar uguns dzēšamo aparātu

26 Aug 2008, 11:22:43 Raicha rakstīja:
ja mums buus "viens kodolierocis" uz 3jaam valstiim, vinsh nekad netiks pielietots, pats saproti bezjeega.

btw, muusu kodolreaktora demontaazha jau bija politisks leemums lai kaadam ieliistu dupsii - kaa Tu staadies priekshaa shii pasha politiskaa kursa piekriteejus saakam organizeet kodolierochu iegaadi?

[ Šo ziņu laboja MarC, 26 Aug 2008, 11:32:06 ]

Kopš: 26. Dec 2002

Ziņojumi: 14865

Braucu ar:

26 Aug 2008, 11:30:08 MarC rakstīja:

Pareizi tu saki, ka kodolieroči netiks izmantoti tie nav nemaz paredzēti , lai tos izmantou , jo visi zin kādas tam būs sekas. Pat doma, ka militāras agresijas rezultātā mazā kodolvalsts varētu izmantot savu pēdējo iespēju - uzlaist gaisā Maskavu atturēs no dajebkādas spēka pielietošanas pret to.

Bet iegādi vajag pareizi to argumentēt - tipa , mēs nevaram savādāk nodrošināt savu drošību , kā vien iegādāties kodolieročus, jo dalība NATO nekādi negarantē to , ka Krievi te varētu uzrīkot to pašu ko Gruzijā.

Un nevajag būt naiviem un cerēt ka NATO , ar militāru spēku , stāsies pretī Krievijai, ja tā gribēs okupēt Latviju

Kopš: 05. Jun 2007

No: Kandava

Ziņojumi: 21489

Braucu ar: BMW