Russia Invades Georgia

[Professor S]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/7553144.stm

This is rather fascinating. Georgia invades independent South Ossetia and Russia blow sthe hell out of them and pushes back HARD. Tough to name a bad guy in all this, but Georgia probably should have left well enough alone. After all, the preach about democracy and freedom and such, yet invade an independent province? Odd.

I get the feeling we don't really know what is going on with all of this. Much of it doesn't seem to make sense.

[uber_paddler]

Yeah, I saw this on the news yesterday, it's pretty ridiculous.

[Jonbo298]

I wonder what ol' Dick meant by "must not go unanswered" in regards to what we may do to Russia for this. I guess we'll see what we are actually going to do in response if any.

[KillerGremlin]

Could Florida be next?

Hurricanes and Russians...sucks.

[Professor S]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/11/georgia.russia/index.html

Now I think Rusia is simply testing the West to see if we'll blink at the thought of Russia retaking one of the Caucuses... and I don't think we will. I'll be surprised if Russia leaves without taking their pound of flesh when all is said and done.

[Bond]

I get the feeling we don't really know what is going on with all of this.
I think that statement describes the entirety of Russian history. Such a fascinating, depressing, and interesting country.

[Yoda9864]

We better not do anything. Why does the US bud its head into everything?

[Professor S]

We better not do anything. Why does the US bud its head into everything?

Well it doesn't look like we will do anything, but in the long run I still think we are in for a long ugly relationship with Putin's Russia. This was a statement of warning to the former soviet states that are now democratically elected: Don't get too used to this freedom thing or we'll smack you around.

I've been thinking about this, and while there are no real white hats in this affair, Russia is by far the biggest offender. Here is why:

1) South Ossetia is a part of Georgia that does not get along with Georgia proper, and has been in political conflict with Georgia since 1992. Now while you can disagree with the tactics Georgia used to re-unify their nation, and I do, they were under their rights to send military into their own nation.

2) Russia has had "peace keepers" in South Ossetia for a long time. Russian troops stationed on Georgian soil essentially occupying it.

3) When Georgia sent the troops in to the province in their own country, Russia butted THEIR heads into georgia's business and started to whoop that ass. Andd they whooped it almost back to the capital, LYING to the world the entire way, denying they had bombed infrastructure and Gori. Russia claims acts of genocide on Georgia's part as justification for their involvement, but witnesses of this outside of Russian claims are few and far between while there are many independent reports of Russian brutality.

So to put this into Western terms, lets say Maine wanted to secede from the US, and the US said no. So Canada sends troops into Maine, even though it is none of their business, and the US is left to wonder if Canada is trying to claim Maine by defacto ownership. When the US sends troops in to reclaim Maine, Canada goes apeshit and throws everything have at the US and marches all the way down to Washington DC.

IMO Russia's motivation was two-fold:

1) Scare the hell out of Westernized caucus nations.

2) See how far they could push before anyone pushed back.

They succeeded on both fronts.

[Vampyr]

We better not do anything. Why does the US bud its head into everything?

Georgia is also an ally of the United States, and they do have or did have troops in Iraq.

[Professor S]

Georgia is also an ally of the United States, and they do have or did have troops in Iraq.

We airlifted their troops back to Georgia, which really upset poor little Putin, who sees hinmself as such a white knight in all this.

And for anyone who believes Putin's Russia isn't all that bad...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Litvinenko_poisoning

Former KGB run the country and I think they drool at the thought of another cold war.

[Jonbo298]

Perfect opportunity for Russia to do another cold war with us seeing how stretched thin we are militarily (which obviously if it ever escalated enough we can divert all troops but its the principle of the matter), our economy is shit, and if we ever went to war with Russia, oil prices would go through the roof thus screwing all even moreso.

[Vampyr]

Perfect opportunity for Russia to do another cold war with us seeing how stretched thin we are militarily (which obviously if it ever escalated enough we can divert all troops but its the principle of the matter), our economy is shit, and if we ever went to war with Russia, oil prices would go through the roof thus screwing all even moreso.


On the flip side, years down the road, our economy would boom with all the movies and video games made based on it.

[magus113]

Thanks war economy.

This world is fucked, if I do say so myself.

[Typhoid]

Personally, I just think Russia felt gyped after the whole USSR thing, and just wants land back. They want to be known as a power again.

It seems they feel it's justified to take back the land they had under communism now - because it's no longer a communist state.


I don't think this is the end of this at all. After they fully occupy and control Georgia, they will undoubtedly assimilate it back into Russia as another Province, and then keep moving on from there, but more agressively.

But that's just be.
I don't think it ends with Georgia - at all.

[Jonbo298]

Personally, I just think Russia felt gyped after the whole USSR thing, and just wants land back. They want to be known as a power again.

Oh yeah, Russia definitely feels that way. How would the US Government feel if we fell as a superpower, Texas seceded, then anywhere from Dallas/Ft. Worth and north to the panhandle decided to secede from Texas and make their own mini-country also.

We'd be pissed and try to get Texas and the smaller "country" back also.

[Professor S]

Well now we can be confident this never had anything to do with South Ossetia. Russia wants the Caususes back and we're on the verge of a 3rd world war.

[Bond]

I don't think Medvedev and Putin are quite crazy enough to incite a third world war, but I suppose you never know. I really thought Medvedev would be more democratic than Putin was, but apparently I was wrong. Of course I did think Putin would move Russia in a pro-democratic direction.

Putin is such a likable guy, it's too bad he's a mini-tyrant.

[KillerGremlin]

Well now we can be confident this never had anything to do with South Ossetia. Russia wants the Caususes back and we're on the verge of a 3rd world war.

Would you and the rest of GT like to join me for some hot love in my fallout shelter?

[KillerGremlin]

I don't think Medvedev and Putin are quite crazy enough to incite a third world war, but I suppose you never know.

Russia are testing the waters. They may start a Cold War type stand off but they won't start a global war. All it takes is one pissed off super power to fire some nuclear missiles and the entire world is screwed.

So come to my fallout shelter and bring lube.

Edit: eff yeah! post 2112. I feel so Canadian right now...you could say I'm Geddy with excitement. Geddy Lee that is.

Okay, I'm done. I'm not funny. Continue coherent discussion.

[Professor S]

I don't think Medvedev and Putin are quite crazy enough to incite a third world war, but I suppose you never know. I really thought Medvedev would be more democratic than Putin was, but apparently I was wrong. Of course I did think Putin would move Russia in a pro-democratic direction.

Putin is such a likable guy, it's too bad he's a mini-tyrant.

Did you think Medvedev ever was in control to make those decisions? He may be more demacratic, but his opinion is irrelevant. The man was hand picked Putin to be his puppet.

And laugh if you must, but I don't see Russia leaving Georgia after multiple promises to do so, and all they've done is continually lie to the world in a very bold faced fashion. If Russia attempts to oust the Georgian government, I can see this getting VERY ugly as NATO and Western Europe won't be able to ignore this situation. Maybe a third world war isn't likely, but this is as close as we've been on a LONG time.

[Typhoid]

THis won't be a third world war at all, not even close.
It will just be a speedbump that is European "democracy".

Russia doesn't have the military to put enough pressure on the western world and the rest of the UN to hold out to cause any real damage than possibly fully occupying Ossetia and Georgia. Other than that, I doubt much will happen before other countries put a foot in.

But I swear to god, if they put a fucking hand on Ukraine, I'm all over their ass like dirt on a fucking potato.

[KillerGremlin]

But I swear to god, if they put a fucking hand on Ukraine, I'm all over their ass like dirt on a fucking potato.

Are you going to ride your moose into battle?

[Typhoid]

I've never seen a moose in my entire life. I've never seen a beaver, either. I've nary seen an elk, nor have I gazed upon a polar bear.


I will however fashion a rope made out of squirrels and ride coyotes across the Pacific while they hop from Orca to Orca.

[BreakABone]

Are you going to ride your moose into battle?

Good to see my Canadian stereotyping live on. :D

[KillerGremlin]

Good to see my Canadian stereotyping live on. :D

I try to pick up the slack when you're not around. And "slack" is not some sexual innuendo, pervert.

[Angrist]

...

[gekko]

Oh yeah, Russia definitely feels that way. How would the US Government feel if we fell as a superpower, Texas seceded, then anywhere from Dallas/Ft. Worth and north to the panhandle decided to secede from Texas and make their own mini-country also.

We'd be pissed and try to get Texas and the smaller "country" back also.

Well Texans still believe they are a country, so they would be happy, and I don't think the rest of the country would miss them. :p

[manasecret]

Well Texans still believe they are a country, so they would be happy, and I don't think the rest of the country would miss them. :p

http://30daysout.files.wordpress.com/2008/04/ls_wallpaper3_10241.jpg

Unfortunately, much like many of the other tasteless, watered down domestic beers, the only thing good about Lone Star beer is the low price.

[KillerGremlin]

Put back 7 or 8 Lone Stars and saddle up on yer sister. Yee-haaw!

[The Germanator]

Well Texans still believe they are a country, so they would be happy, and I don't think the rest of the country would miss them. :p

I would exclude Austin from this. The rest of Texas...they can do whatever. Actually keep the original Dr. Pepper factory in Dublin, TX and keep Austin for me to play shows and get wasted at SXSW every year, but yeah, the rest of TX, not so much.

[KillerGremlin]

Goose Island gets my vote for "beer of Illinois." At least beer of Chicago. Texas....where the rattle snakes bite and the sisters get finger blasted by their brothers.

/stereotypes ftw

[Professor S]

Back on topic, Russia is still in Georgia, doing whatever they damn well please and the impotent United Nations are still sitting and wondering what in the world to do when faced with anything of importance. Yet more proof that the UN is a rudderless, immoral and useless institiution.

So far they have ignored:

Rwanda
Darfur
Taiwan
Georgia
Let me know if I missed any

And thats just RECENTLY.

[manasecret]

I love that Texas is awesome enough that so many people that know next to nothing about it have polarized opinions on it. Kind of like how awesome Canada is.

And for the record -- Saint Arnold beer = awesome. Germy, next time you're in Austin, ask for it and you will receive much respect. Also ask for Real Ale, a very respectable set of beers that will also endear you to locals. And Shiner is the best cheap(er) beer around these parts, even their ubiquitous Bock.

Back on topic, yeah the UN does look completely useless when you list all the shit they missed. Maybe they should be disbanded?

[gekko]

Please, anyone who has met a Texan has had to listen to all their stupid stories about Texas history, and how they fly the flag as high as the American flag to show their arrogance, etc. It's quite sickening.

P.S. Alaska is bigger, and has better fishing :p

I'd much rather talk to a Canadian. :D

[manasecret]

Yeah, you can meet overly proud people from anywhere, though. Like overly proud Minnesotans who think other people give a shit about their guttural "Uff da" they say when they sit down or pick up something heavy or for just about anything they want it to mean. Or when they name their shopping plaza hell the arrogant "Mall of America" as if their dreary, white-washed shopping mall were any different than the rest of the country's.

[BreakABone]

*Grabs Popcorn*

Canadian bashing.
Gekko vs Mana.
Texas Bashing.

This is good stuff.

[KillerGremlin]

Okay okay....Texas isn't as bad as Florida....I'll give it that. Because, you don't move to Texas and wait to die. Plus, Texas is the most obese State in America and by my own infallible intuition, the fattest place in the world. Oh, and Tony Romo chocked against the Giants.

[manasecret]

Your stats are out of date -- The Most Obese States: The South Wins Again! (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/07/17/most-obese-states-the-sou_n_113460.html)

They say it's all the fried food, but I reckon it also has a lot to do with the awesome BBQ in most of the south.

And for the rest of you in other states, don't get too proud -- a less stinky turd is still a turd. In other words, even the state with the least amount of obesity is still 18.7% obese. There's supposed to be a national goal of reaching 15% obesity by 2010, and not even one state is close to that goal.

P.S. Tony Romo and the Cowboys can piss up a rope.

[KillerGremlin]

BBQ and fried food! sign me up!

[Professor S]

While I like most of the people here, this thread is sich an indictment of the youth of today. Russia is essentially trying to annex Geogia or parts of it, they're about to leave NATO, they are threatening nuclear attacks on Poland for putting in a DEFENSE shield with the US...

And everyone in this thread is talking about nonsense...

I'm literally saddened by this thread. It depresses me.

[DeathsHand]

While I like most of the people here, this thread is sich an indictment of the youth of today. Russia is essentially trying to annex Geogia or parts of it, they're about to leave NATO, they are threatening nuclear attacks on Poland for putting in a DEFENSE shield with the US...

I think that'd be a pretty wild, entertaining sight to behold.
How depressed does that make you feel?

[KillerGremlin]

I'm literally saddened by this thread. It depresses me.

Maybe you should go check out my OGC Olympics thread, I hear that it raises people's spirits if you know what I mean.

My thoughts on America putting a "missile defense system" in Poland? Huge mistake. I know...they thought they could slip that one by Russia, seriously though what the fuck. Missile defense system? More like first strike response system.

Again, I need to reiterate....anyone who fires a nuclear missile is going to turn into a smoldering crater. We don't need physical nuclear missile defense systems because if someone fires a nuke the whole world is going to shit and no defense system will stop it.

We need logical, rational politics.

[manasecret]

While I like most of the people here, this thread is sich an indictment of the youth of today. Russia is essentially trying to annex Geogia or parts of it, they're about to leave NATO, they are threatening nuclear attacks on Poland for putting in a DEFENSE shield with the US...

And everyone in this thread is talking about nonsense...

I'm literally saddened by this thread. It depresses me.

They're called digressions. The word "digression" or some translation of it has been around since, I dunno, I'm going to guess since the beginning of human linguistic history. Do you think it is only "today's youth" (hint, I'm only seven years younger than you) that have been prone to digressions, despite the word being around for ages? Have you spent every waking moment of the last two weeks or so thinking and talking only about Georgia and Russia?

Again, like the drinking thread, I'm sorry to hijack the thread. But, puh-lease about the "today's youth" crap.

[Professor S]

They're called digressions. The word "digression" or some translation of it has been around since, I dunno, I'm going to guess since the beginning of human linguistic history. Do you think it is only "today's youth" (hint, I'm only seven years younger than you) that have been prone to digressions, despite the word being around for ages? Have you spent every waking moment of the last two weeks or so thinking and talking only about Georgia and Russia?

Again, like the drinking thread, I'm sorry to hijack the thread. But, puh-lease about the "today's youth" crap.

You make the mistake of assuming I don't refer to people my age as well, and I do. I certain;y don;t consider 31 to be "old". It seems like everyone under 40 is simply ignoring the situation, while those with strong memories of the cold war really see what is going on. Thats what I find very sad, how the youyth of today ignore hostory. Worse yet, is how this has become basically a nothing story for the media. The whole situation is pathetic.

As for digressions, there is a diffrence bewteen digressing and firm stuffing ne's head in the sand. There are plenty of places to digress on this forum. This is a serious situation. Digress elsewhere.

As for doubts about the system that is being agreed upon, I had doubts myself about its intent, but every news source I can find has no other proof that it is anything but a defense system so I'll take it at face value until I hear otherwise. Saying anything else is simply basing an basing an opinion on ignorance.

[KillerGremlin]

Again...I ask....why do we need a defense system? If someone is stupid enough to fire missiles at America or launch a nuclear attack they are:

A) most likely a global super power or pissed off third world country (i'm looking at you Iran)
B) starting nuclear war...aka the mass destruction of earth
C) going to get turned into a fucking crater because America is not going to sit idly by while we get blown up

If our government can fabricate false weapons of mass destruction to go to war we will certainly blow the shit out of someone who attacks us with nuclear weapons.

American arrogance aside....no one wants to see a city full of civilians blown up. The argument for putting defensive measures into place is to protect our country when someone goes on the offense.

Who is planning on going on the offensive?

This "defensive" implementation is more like an offense implementation in my opinion. And, prior to this situation we knew Russia would be pissed if we put our little defense system in Poland. So, why did we do it anyway? It takes two people to have a fight, and we certainly aren't helping by provoking Russia. It also doesn't help that Russia is a global superpower, Putin isn't a great guy, and we've already gone through a long Cold War with Russia.

Is history not a clear indicator that provoking the opposing force does not work in resolving issues? I consider the American/Russian relationship neutral, at best. The best way to stay neutral with someone is do neutral things....like not putting a missile defense system in Poland.


Yeah, the media and our US Government are both indicating that this defense system is not capable of delivering a payload that would cause any major harm. Apparently it is nothing more than a defense system. That doesn't change the fact that our government knowingly provoked Russia.

Again, I know very little about politics....it just seems like this was a bad idea. I'm sure our government could have reached a compromise or something?

[KillerGremlin]

Basically, it is my understanding that the Cold War was started and prolonged by a series of escalating events.

Putting a "missile defense system" in Poland is an escalating event, is it not?

We may see it as politically neutral or non-offensive, but Russia does not. The fact that we knew putting it in Poland would upset Russia makes the entire situation an ESCALATING EVENT.

Don't we have enough shit to worry about with the Middle East? Can't we just let the UN sort Russia out?

I swear I'm moving to Canada...legal marijuana, free health care, and a French government that would rather eat wine and cheese than be "noble".

[manasecret]

This "defensive" implementation is more like an offense implementation in my opinion. And, prior to this situation we knew Russia would be pissed if we put our little defense system in Poland. So, why did we do it anyway? It takes two people to have a fight, and we certainly aren't helping by provoking Russia. It also doesn't help that Russia is a global superpower, Putin isn't a great guy, and we've already gone through a long Cold War with Russia.

That's a good point there about being offensive with our defense, and the way I've been thinking about it but couldn't put into words. It's kind of like how Bush and Co. tried to spruce up the idea of invading Iraq, how did they put it? It was like being defensive by attacking first. But isn't that just a back asswards way of saying you're being offensive?

Like the name of that South Park episode, "Two Days Before the Day After Tomorrow."

Why do we need to have this arms race? Is it really that necessary to be offensive with a defensive system in Europe?

[Angrist]

I've learned not to worry about politics.

[KillerGremlin]

I've learned not to worry about politics.

I've learned that I am the product of the American Idol generation. If I try to bring up politics in an intelligent discussion (so this excludes drunk talk) people either get upset or don't care.

Proof that people don't care: we still have the same broke-as-fuck two party system. I'm not a big fan of McCain or Obama and there is not a single thing I can do about it.

Sometimes I think we need another World War or we need to reinstate the draft to WAKE PEOPLE UP. Why should people care about the news and politics when they can turn on the tube and ignore the problems in our world?

There's no draft, people don't have to fight. They don't remind people that a billion people in the world survive on less than a dollar a day. There's no news flash showing the children dying in African countries from lack of food and water. Ignorance is the best kind of bliss....

I just wonder what will happen when our current generation is forced to pick up politics.

[manasecret]

Ick, more of this "in my day" nostalgia crap, and you're only 20! What is it about humans that makes us always think that everything was so much better back in the day?

Yes, I know what you mean about bringing up politics in a discussion, and people don't want to talk about it. Do you really think things were much different in previous generations? Weren't people just as focused on celebrities 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 years ago? Wasn't the two-party system the same broke-as-fuck as it was 100 years ago? I know plenty of people my age and younger that are more than willing to talk politics and are very opinionated about, some of them here! Don't you think that it has always been that some people give a shit about politics, and others don't? Or do you really think this generation has all of sudden become so different than the past ones?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people didn't know nearly as much about starving children in Africa even 30 years ago, let alone 50, or 100, as we do today. I can prove this just by Googling "starving children in Africa" and read all the articles that come up. I'm going to go out on a further limb and say that we contribute much more time and money to those causes as a whole today, including people our age, than we did in those previous decades. I think people in the Peace Corps our age would be pissed off if you told them that they don't care.

And you talk about needing another World War?? Don't be so glib.

[Bond]

Ick, more of this "in my day" nostalgia crap, and you're only 20! What is it about humans that makes us always think that everything was so much better back in the day?

Yes, I know what you mean about bringing up politics in a discussion, and people don't want to talk about it. Do you really think things were much different in previous generations? Weren't people just as focused on celebrities 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 years ago? Wasn't the two-party system the same broke-as-fuck as it was 100 years ago? I know plenty of people my age and younger that are more than willing to talk politics and are very opinionated about, some of them here! Don't you think that it has always been that some people give a shit about politics, and others don't? Or do you really think this generation has all of sudden become so different than the past ones?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people didn't know nearly as much about starving children in Africa even 30 years ago, let alone 50, or 100, as we do today. I can prove this just by Googling "starving children in Africa" and read all the articles that come up. I'm going to go out on a further limb and say that we contribute much more time and money to those causes as a whole today, including people our age, than we did in those previous decades. I think people in the Peace Corps our age would be pissed off if you told them that they don't care.

And you talk about needing another World War?? Don't be so glib.
I think, for sure, the quality of our politicians has gone way down. Ronald Reagan, John F Kennedy, John Adams, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Abraham Lincoln... there aren't statesmen like them anymore.

[Professor S]

Too much here to reply to, but I find the basis of the arguments agianst the US/Poland agreement to be a bit... awkward at best.

Russia invades Georgia, says they're going to leave multple times but never attempt to do so for obvious expansionist reasons, the US and Poland agree to a defense deal inspiring Russia to theaten a NUCLEAR ATTACK... and we're the ones escalating this mess?

Is there ANYTHING that goes on in the world that isn't America's fault?

[Professor S]

Ick, more of this "in my day" nostalgia crap, and you're only 20! What is it about humans that makes us always think that everything was so much better back in the day?

Yes, I know what you mean about bringing up politics in a discussion, and people don't want to talk about it. Do you really think things were much different in previous generations? Weren't people just as focused on celebrities 20, 30, 40, 50, 60, 70, 80, and 90 years ago? Wasn't the two-party system the same broke-as-fuck as it was 100 years ago? I know plenty of people my age and younger that are more than willing to talk politics and are very opinionated about, some of them here! Don't you think that it has always been that some people give a shit about politics, and others don't? Or do you really think this generation has all of sudden become so different than the past ones?

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that people didn't know nearly as much about starving children in Africa even 30 years ago, let alone 50, or 100, as we do today. I can prove this just by Googling "starving children in Africa" and read all the articles that come up. I'm going to go out on a further limb and say that we contribute much more time and money to those causes as a whole today, including people our age, than we did in those previous decades. I think people in the Peace Corps our age would be pissed off if you told them that they don't care.

And you talk about needing another World War?? Don't be so glib.

There is so much here, I would have to quote every single sentence to point out every flaw. Instead I'll list the main ones:

1) You are completely different from previous generations, just as my generation is completely different in most aspects from Baby Boomers and they are completely different from Veterans, and we are from different generations (I'm an GenX, you are a Echo Boomer or Millenial).

I teach a class on generational Identities that is based on seven published studies, so I doubt you know more on this subject than I... unless you, you know, GOOGLE it, then you would of course be an expert, just like your generation apparently has mastered Africa's ills by reading a Wikipedia entry.

And you think I'M glib?

2) Do your generation really know that much about starving children in Africa? If you do, why doesn't anyone care enough to do anything about it? Has knowing about starving children in Africa stopped ANYTHING? No, while we might know MORE about tharving childen in Africa, in the end our knowledge changes NOTHING. Actions change the world, not knowledge, and you can only act on knowledge when history and experience put that knowledge into context.

By the way, I find your arrogance about how much your generation KNOWS to be silly. If your generation knows so much, why was LIVE AID created by Baby Boomers ands the Children's Miracle Network created by Veterans? We've known quite a bit about Africa and world events for a long time now, without the aid of the misinformation and bias bible that is the internet.

That whole section of your post was assinine, to be honest.

3) And I never said I wanted to start a World War, and in history, it has been INACTION that has made World Wars inevitable. I could run through every single parallel bewteen this situation and those in the past that have lead to horror, but you've made it quite obvious making decisions based on evidence and history mean nothing to you, so I won't bother.

In the end my main reason why I think the younger generations don't care about world events, but they know about the, and that makes it worse. Knowledge is not a virtue, and in fact, if you are aware of the evils of the world, but still do nothing or advocate inaction.... well, someone said it better than I:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."

- Edmund Burke (1729 - 1797)

[manasecret]

I guess I should have quoted KillerGremlin? My post came after his, it was response to his, not yours. I wasn't calling you glib, I didn't say you wanted to start a World War, etc. Please reread and repost, as you obviously replied with the wrong idea in your head.

I'll respond anyway to some of it because of how much crap you spew, which of course must be all completely correct because you teach a class on the subject. While I respect that you teach and kudos to you, excuse me for doubting your complete expertise on the subject simply because you teach a class on it.

There is so much here, I would have to quote every single sentence to point out every flaw. Instead I'll list the main ones:

1) You are completely different from previous generations, just as my generation is completely different in most aspects from Baby Boomers and they are completely different from Veterans, and we are from different generations (I'm an GenX, you are a Echo Boomer or Millenial).

Our generation being "completely different" from previous generations, "completely" being the key word here, is false and you know it. I figured someone used to arguing wouldn't use absolute terms like that.

Yes, of course the generations have differences. But going back to what KG was bringing up (and what I was responding to), do you really think that our generation today cares any less and does any less about the world's problems than the generations before? If so, prove it, because until you prove otherwise it sounds like just more of the nostalgic crap that every human on this earth seems prone to.

KG mentioned American Idol specifically -- haven't there been celebrities and the adoration of celebrities for the whole past century? He mentions the broke-as-fuck two-party system like it hasn't been that way for two centuries prior, with some major breakups in the system only two or three times. You pick apart my post, but not KG's post. KG's post, which is an opinion piece that boils down to the same ol' trite, "This generation is so much worse than previous generations, back in the day everything was great!" argument that I hear all the time, but never has any facts to back it up with. That argument, or lack of one, irks me.

To act as if our generation doesn't care or do anything about the world problems is asinine and insulting. Here's a list of things off the top of my head that our generation has participated in:

1. Peace Corps
2. Live Aid - EDIT: I must be thinking of a different concert charity, I could have sworn Live Aid or something similar to it still goes on annually. I must be thinking of Live 8 and Live Earth.
3. UNICEF
4. Countless volunteer programs at universities and high schools across the U.S.
5. Child's Play
6. Countless facebook groups and events raising money for countless charities

And these are ones I just thought of. And in response to the inevitable argument about facebook groups (or anything similar) being useless, raising awareness and raising money are noble goals. Is holding a rock concert any different?

I teach a class on generational Identities that is based on seven published studies, so I doubt you know more on this subject than I... unless you, you know, GOOGLE it, then you would of course be an expert, just like your generation apparently has mastered Africa's ills by reading a Wikipedia entry.

2) Do your generation really know that much about starving children in Africa? If you do, why doesn't anyone care enough to do anything about it? Has knowing about starving children in Africa stopped ANYTHING? No, while we might know MORE about tharving childen in Africa, in the end our knowledge changes NOTHING. Actions change the world, not knowledge, and you can only act on knowledge when history and experience put that knowledge into context.

By the way, I find your arrogance about how much your generation KNOWS to be silly. If your generation knows so much, why was LIVE AID created by Baby Boomers ands the Children's Miracle Network created by Veterans? We've known quite a bit about Africa and world events for a long time now, without the aid of the misinformation and bias bible that is the internet.I didn't mean that our generation has mastered Africa's ills any better than any previous generation. What I meant was that our generation as a whole knows more about the problems of Africa and the rest of the world than previous generations at a similar age simply by the mass of information out there. (To clarify just a little more, I mean that more individuals know more about the world's problems than the number that did in previous generations.)

How was information spread to the masses before the 1990s? Through newspapers, TV, libraries, and other media. How is information spread to the masses now? Through all of those sources, PLUS the biggest and most complete and most up-to-date library the world has ever known and that only gets stronger every day, the internet. Now, which one trumps the other in how much information is available?

Heh, Internet bashing, that's a new one for me, especially odd since of course you use the internet for the same purposes as the rest of us. How many of your arguments have you waged with facts gleaned solely from the internet?

3) And I never said I wanted to start a World War, and in history, it has been INACTION that has made World Wars inevitable. I could run through every single parallel bewteen this situation and those in the past that have lead to horror, but you've made it quite obvious making decisions based on evidence and history mean nothing to you, so I won't bother.This one makes me laugh. Please prove that I have made "it quite obvious making decisions based on evidence and history mean nothing to" me, and make sure to include references to evidence and the history of my posts. Or maybe that was just a shot because you thought I was responding to your post?

In the end my main reason why I think the younger generations don't care about world events, but they know about the, and that makes it worse. Knowledge is not a virtue, and in fact, if you are aware of the evils of the world, but still do nothing or advocate inaction.... well, someone said it better than I:In the end, my main point was that denouncing our entire generation as a bunch of people that don't care about the world is hogwash, and if you're going to say that then at least attempt to offer some proof for your opinion. (Another hint -- a thread from a board about video games doesn't count.) To me it sounds like the exact same thing that every previous generation says about the generation that comes after them. Everyone always thinks their generation was the best one ever, and kids these days never do anything right, not like in my day! And yet the world keeps on turning as different generations come along, and the world is a far better place today then it was 100, 80, 50, 20, whatever years ago.

[Professor S]

Mana, you're quibbling over small points. You criticize me for using absolutes and generalizations without realizing that absolutes based on generalizations are the ONLY WAY to analyze a generation. We're talking about millions of people. It is a given that the assertions are not true for every individual.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't severe and definitive differences when we analyze those generations when we combine the individuals based on shared experience and attitudes. Once again, that doesn't mean there can;t be exceptions, as I recognize I am an exception in many cases, but the exception does not invalidate the rule.

And for the record, almost none of the charitable organizations were created by the bottom two generations and compared to the size of the generations our involvement in them isn't even worth mentioning. Try again.

[Professor S]

But the funny part is, through all of this quibbling about whether generational identities are valid in this ccontext, we STILL SEE NO ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHERWISE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD.

Mana, it seems you'd rather argue the obvious than truly contend my point by actually posting about world events. You can tell me what your generation and my does and doesn't do all you like, but all the bottom two generations have SHOWN me is the exact opposite, regardless of your rhetoric.

[Professor S]

Back on topic:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7576556.stm

Russia finally pulls out... oh wait... not so much.

[manasecret]

Too much here to reply to, but I find the basis of the arguments agianst the US/Poland agreement to be a bit... awkward at best.

Russia invades Georgia, says they're going to leave multple times but never attempt to do so for obvious expansionist reasons, the US and Poland agree to a defense deal inspiring Russia to theaten a NUCLEAR ATTACK... and we're the ones escalating this mess?

Is there ANYTHING that goes on in the world that isn't America's fault?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you missed the first step in the sequence of events.

Didn't Georgia invade South Ossetia first?

But the funny part is, through all of this quibbling about whether generational identities are valid in this ccontext, we STILL SEE NO ATTEMPT TO PROVE OTHERWISE IN THE CONTEXT OF THIS THREAD.

Mana, it seems you'd rather argue the obvious than truly contend my point by actually posting about world events.Ugh, completely not true. Please look back. I had moved on, and then another post was made (by KG) about how worthless his and my generation is, which I guess I should have just sat by and not cared that someone was shit-talking my generation. Then it would have been more of this not caring that my generation apparently only does. :rolleyes:

You can tell me what your generation and my does and doesn't do all you like, but all the bottom two generations have SHOWN me is the exact opposite, regardless of your rhetoric.So you and I have both presented opposing opinions, neither with meaningful evidence. Whoop dee doo. But I figured and hoped since you had seven studies to refer to you might actually bring in some interesting statistics, but I guess not. I guess you'll just be another old man in a long history of old men that bemoans the state of the youth without actually backing up your shit-talking, while the generation below you rolls their eyes.

[manasecret]

Dah, I forgot the part I meant most to respond to.

Mana, you're quibbling over small points. You criticize me for using absolutes and generalizations without realizing that absolutes based on generalizations are the ONLY WAY to analyze a generation. We're talking about millions of people. It is a given that the assertions are not true for every individual.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't severe and definitive differences when we analyze those generations when we combine the individuals based on shared experience and attitudes. Once again, that doesn't mean there can;t be exceptions, as I recognize I am an exception in many cases, but the exception does not invalidate the rule.

And for the record, almost none of the charitable organizations were created by the bottom two generations and compared to the size of the generations our involvement in them isn't even worth mentioning. Try again.

Prove it then. Do you have some kind of statistics you are referring to about how much money and time one generation contributed over another? Or just generalization based on your own experience?

Yes, I understand that generalizations can be generally correct, that's the idea, but unless you have statistics or studies or trends to back up your generalization, then your generalization is as good as any other. If you have some studies to refer to, I would like for you to share some of what you know. I'll make another thread if that makes you feel better about it.

[Angrist]

My WoW guild leader had 2 chat rules:

1. No religion.
2. No politics.

He was a wise man. :) Before we killed him because he was a catholic and against the UN.

[Professor S]

Dah, I forgot the part I meant most to respond to.

Prove it then. Do you have some kind of statistics you are referring to about how much money and time one generation contributed over another? Or just generalization based on your own experience?

No... NUMBERS. Since 1961, 178,000 people have volunteered for the peace corps. Even if the entirety of that number was from Generation X, it would amount to a total of .45%... not 45%... .45% of our population. Currently there are about 6,000 peace corps volunteers, and an estimated 110,000,000 GenXers and Millenials (40,000,000 X and 77,000,000 Millenials). I tried to create a percentage for that, but it was literally so minute is caused my calculator to error out.

http://www.peacecorps.gov/index.cfm?shell=resources.media.press.view&news_id=1011

I don't even need to mention Live Aid, as it was created by Bob Geldof who was born in 1951 making him a Baby Boomer, and more obviously... Africa is still a complete mess anyway.

Its a perfect example of how intentions and feelings and even money mean next to nothing. Live Aid was important only because it raised awareness, but being aware of horrors and then ignoring them is worse than being ignorant of those horrors in the first place.

UNICEF was created in 1946 to help with the rebuilding effort after WW2. I like UNICEF. Probably the only thing the UN has done right, and I too sold candy bars to raise money for them. The real people making it work are Europeans.

http://www.unicef.org/about/who/index_history.html

Which reminds me: To be clear, my statements directly refer to American and to a lesser extent, Canadian generations. Other countries generations had much different formative experiences.

And to be honest, you keep talking about raising money, and money means nothing if it isn't applied correctly. There are dozens, if not more, charitable organizations that are frauds. AmeriVets is one, only distributing about 20% of their collected donations. But if money is all that important, here are a couple links:

http://www.thematuremarket.com/silver-economy/baby-boomers-charity-8138-19.html

http://www.charitynavigator.org/index.cfm?bay=content.view&cpid=765
That one comes to your defense, but the data is skewed to do so because they remove religion as an aspect of the generation, which is silly.

http://philanthropy.com/free/articles/v19/i03/03002501.htm

Part of the problem may be due to generational differences. In a 2003 study by Richard Steinberg and Mark Wilhelm at the Indiana University Center on Philanthropy, 53 percent of households headed by members of Generation X — individuals born from 1961 to 1981 — reported giving to charity. That was significantly less than households headed by baby boomers (75 percent) and those headed by people born before World War II (80 percent).

I'm talking about actions. I give to the LSA, but that isn't the same as working to stop Cancer, and I certainly don't go around and pretend that I'm informed about it because I raise money. And by the way, older generations are FAR more generous with cash, and religious people are more generous than any other demographic.

Yes, I understand that generalizations can be generally correct, that's the idea, but unless you have statistics or studies or trends to back up your generalization, then your generalization is as good as any other. If you have some studies to refer to, I would like for you to share some of what you know. I'll make another thread if that makes you feel better about it.

The following is from the handout for our Generational Identities class that I co-wrote and teach. The information is based on 7 studies that I cannot reveal as it is proprietary information. The parts relating to this discussion involve the advancement of informational technology and how it has changed the way that younger generations think, where they trust information over experience.

The Generations:
• Veterans (born 1925-1942)
• Baby Boomers (born 1943-1960)
• Gen X (born 1961-1981)
• Echo Boomers (born after 1982)

Veterans … The Silent Generation
These clients need the bottom line. They are very money conscious and rather frugal. They may fear that they may outlive their assets, and they do not wish to rely on their children to provide for them. They may not need all the fluff, but they do want the bare facts clearly explained.
Considered to be the last generation with strong social skills, this generation usually can tell a good story or play a great round of golf or a hand of bridge.

One common mistake that agents often make is the idea they are really working for the child of the senior. Although this is true in some instances, remember this generation has come through many difficulties, and it could be perceived as an insult if the information isn’t directed to them.

This group is:
• Cautious
• Have concern about their money’s value
• Maintain interest in neighborhood value
• Expect respect and fairness

Boomers
At 77 million people, this is the biggest group of buyers and sellers in the market today. The oldest in this group is in their early 60s. Historically, they are not budget minded and may be in debt. Although they are aging they believe they are ageless, most are far from thinking about retirement and many still have children living at home. (The average Echo Boomer lives at home well into their 20s.) They want the listing information on a report, but probably don’t want you to explain every detail; they will be interested in the summary information. They aren’t known for their patience so the answers need to be to the point.

A survey by NAR in 2006 indicated that most Boomers want professional services when they buy/sell Real Estate. NAR believes that boomers expect professional service and guidance and that they value those services. They expect that the professional will help to establish the correct asking price; explain all contracts, forms, agreements and will do all the negotiating on their behalf. In other words, they expect service!

This group is typically:
• Idealistic
• Cynical
• Not budget minded
• Impatient (want results)
• Uncomfortable with new technology
• Expectant of service

Gen X
This generation has that "Prove it or move it" attitude. They question everything. If they don't like what you have to say, they’ll take their business some place else. Like all generations, they are culturally egocentric. You need to speak their language and do business in the medium that they are most comfortable, the Internet.

This self-reliant group very likely will already know much of what you have to present. They can be very informal and technologically proficient. They will expect you to know at least as much as they know, but will expect that you know more.

This group is typically:
• Self reliant
• Pragmatic
• Seem demanding (question everything)
• Adaptable
• Poor people skills

Echo Boomers … Gen Y
Nearly 77 million, the largest group since the Boomers. This group is the youngest of home buyers. The oldest of the group is just entering the market place. They buy young, the average echo-boomer buys their first home at age 26; that’s three years sooner than most GenXers. A very diverse group; technology, Internet, e-communications, diversity are all within their grasp.

Although this group is very comfortable with technology, they seek expertise and associate it with experience. They will expect to be treated as adults and will be put off if they feel they are not being taken seriously.

This group is typically:
• Optimistic
• Confident
• Achievement-oriented
• Impatient
• Idealistic
• Multi-tasking

I'll post the info we give for ouir handout that we teach. It is based on 7 studies that I can't reveal because they are my companies Proprietary information. The main issues we cover that relate to this discussion is how advancements in information technology has influenced the younger generations to value information over experience.

[KillerGremlin]

damn...that's a lot of statistics.
i make one post that is mostly out of jest and not all that serious and i start this massive debate....in a way i feel like jebus

[manasecret]

I appreciate the statistics and info. I'd like to hear the rest if you're still so inclined. I'll probably start another thread here soon, starting with a quote of your stats.

[Professor S]

Back on topic:

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/08/28/russia.georgia.cold.war/index.html

Suuuurrreeee... I guess Bush tossed a banana peel in Russia and the military slipped and fell into Georgia...