U.S debating whether or not to sell Stingers and Javelins to Georgia.

C4Casey · 08-27-2008, 04:33 PM

I found this article on the Reuters website. Any thoughts?

U.S. assessing possible military aid to Georgia | U.S. | Reuters

kinggovernor · 08-27-2008, 04:49 PM

not a good idea IMO

C4Casey · 08-27-2008, 04:55 PM

Id say stingers and javelins are pushing the envelope. Mayve we could get them to Georgia in 6 months to a year from now if tensions cool down. I agree with the article in that anything offensive would be out of the question.

wanna be drummer · 08-27-2008, 05:10 PM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

I found this article on the Reuters website. Any thoughts?

U.S. assessing possible military aid to Georgia | U.S. | Reuters

It wouldn't matter anyways. Russia's military vastly stronger.

I mean, unless Georgia proves itself to be an Israeli-like force in Asia, there's nothing it could do to hold ground against a full-scare Russia military effort.

But thats assuming Russia does that. Regarding the current status of the "war" I think it would be useless anyways.

C4Casey · 08-27-2008, 05:20 PM

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

It wouldn't matter anyways. Russia's military vastly stronger.

I mean, unless Georgia proves itself to be an Israeli-like force in Asia, there's nothing it could do to hold ground against a full-scare Russia military effort.

But thats assuming Russia does that. Regarding the current status of the "war" I think it would be useless anyways.

Stingers and Javelins would be extremely usefull in a guerilla-type war. The Georgian military wouldn't have to repell the Russians, they'd just have to kill enough Russians that public opinion would turn against war, forcing Russia's withdrawl. That's pretty much what happened in Afghanistan. Stingers and Javelins would make that task fairly easy for the Georgians.

DosEquis · 08-28-2008, 01:03 AM

We gave the afghanistan "rebels" (before they were terrorists) a bunch of stingers for them to shoot down Russian attack helicopters.

Its not a good idea to entagle ourselves in things like that. We need to help up front, in the open, and with others.

wanna be drummer · 08-28-2008, 01:44 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

Stingers and Javelins would be extremely usefull in a guerilla-type war. The Georgian military wouldn't have to repell the Russians, they'd just have to kill enough Russians that public opinion would turn against war, forcing Russia's withdrawl. That's pretty much what happened in Afghanistan. Stingers and Javelins would make that task fairly easy for the Georgians.

Georgia does not have the manpower to halt an all-out assault by Russia. Theres simply no way. don't care how many Stingers and Javs they have, it couldn't possibly happen. They could fight guerrila style, but Georgia would still be Russia's (think Iraqi insurgents in iraq)

Angus_Aboot · 08-28-2008, 01:57 AM

Originally Posted by DosEquis

We gave the afghanistan "rebels" (before they were terrorists) a bunch of stingers for them to shoot down Russian attack helicopters.

Didn't they later turn them on U.S. troops as well?

Scrum · 08-28-2008, 02:14 AM

Sell? That article makes it sound like we are thinking of giving them weapons.

Can someone who supports this please explain to me why it's ok for us to give weapons to other countries, but it's not ok for us to give healthcare coverage to people here?

C4Casey · 08-28-2008, 04:01 AM

Originally Posted by wanna be drummer

Georgia does not have the manpower to halt an all-out assault by Russia. Theres simply no way. don't care how many Stingers and Javs they have, it couldn't possibly happen. They could fight guerrila style, but Georgia would still be Russia's (think Iraqi insurgents in iraq)

The Iraqi insurgents would be doing alot better if they were backed by a super-power. As far as arms are concerned, the vast majority simply got AK-47's and RPG-7's. Those are really useless against modern tanks and jets. Javelins and Stingers are game-changers.

C4Casey · 08-28-2008, 04:06 AM

Originally Posted by Scrum

Sell? That article makes it sound like we are thinking of giving them weapons.

Can someone who supports this please explain to me why it's ok for us to give weapons to other countries, but it's not ok for us to give healthcare coverage to people here?

We never simply give weapons away. We usually do it for either pure $$ or some sort of military/economic agreement. For example, we've supplied Georgia with alot of arms before the conflict broke out, and thus Georgia was willing to send 2,000 of their best troops to Iraq.

And about your second question, the answer is money. It costs a whole lot more to give healthcare to a country of over 300 million people than to equip a small force of around 30,000. Think of it more like military welfare.

C4Casey · 08-28-2008, 04:10 AM

Originally Posted by Angus_Aboot

Didn't they later turn them on U.S. troops as well?

By the time we went into Afghanistan the batteries that powered the seekers on the Stingers were drained, making the missiles useless. Most of the aircraft we lose are helicopters hit by RPGs, ala Blackhawk Down.

WickedLou9 · 08-28-2008, 09:52 AM

I don't think we should focus on helping Georgia militarily as it would be a waste of money.
We should be focusing our efforts on getting an international coalition together that is unified in it's approach to how to deal with Russia. Pressure them by hitting them in thier pocketbook. That's the best way.

Scrum · 08-28-2008, 10:19 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

We never simply give weapons away. We usually do it for either pure $$ or some sort of military/economic agreement. For example, we've supplied Georgia with alot of arms before the conflict broke out, and thus Georgia was willing to send 2,000 of their best troops to Iraq.

And about your second question, the answer is money. It costs a whole lot more to give healthcare to a country of over 300 million people than to equip a small force of around 30,000. Think of it more like military welfare.

I love conservative principals.

Welfare is ok as long as it's in weapon form and to another country.

If a private US company wants to sell them these weapons, more power to them. They should also be able to sell them to NK and Iran if they choose. The government shouldn't be selling anything to anyone, let alone arming one side of a conflict. That has historically blown up in our face.

wanna be drummer · 08-28-2008, 11:01 AM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

The Iraqi insurgents would be doing alot better if they were backed by a super-power. As far as arms are concerned, the vast majority simply got AK-47's and RPG-7's. Those are really useless against modern tanks and jets. Javelins and Stingers are game-changers.

RPGs aren't useless against modern tanks...

And once again, a few extra arms are not going to stop the modern Russian military machine...i don't care what the Goergians have. It simply couldn't happen

kinggovernor · 08-28-2008, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think we should focus on helping Georgia militarily as it would be a waste of money.
We should be focusing our efforts on getting an international coalition together that is unified in it's approach to how to deal with Russia. Pressure them by hitting them in thier pocketbook. That's the best way.

I agree

C4Casey · 08-28-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally Posted by WickedLou9

I don't think we should focus on helping Georgia militarily as it would be a waste of money.
We should be focusing our efforts on getting an international coalition together that is unified in it's approach to how to deal with Russia. Pressure them by hitting them in thier pocketbook. That's the best way.

Good point. I heard Europe is actually considering sancitons.

C4Casey · 08-28-2008, 04:04 PM

Originally Posted by Scrum

I love conservative principals.

Welfare is ok as long as it's in weapon form and to another country.

I was being sacrastic. You were implying if we can give arms to Georgia then we can afford universal health care. Universal health care costs alot more than supplying a small force with arms. And besides, it's off topic.

Scrum · 08-28-2008, 05:14 PM

Originally Posted by C4Casey

I was being sacrastic. You were implying if we can give arms to Georgia then we can afford universal health care. Universal health care costs alot more than supplying a small force with arms. And besides, it's off topic.

I was comparing them from a moral/ethical/political standpoint, not an economic one.

kombayn · 08-29-2008, 06:21 AM

If we're not going to help anyone especially countries trying to be taken-over in the open, then we might as well just exercise a full non-intervention foreign policy. Honestly, I don't like what Russia is doing, it's just as snake-like for us trying to pin 9/11 to Iraq. Georgia invading South Ossetia had nothing to do with protecting their people, just like 9/11 had nothing to do with protecting the people of Iraq (or anything for that matter).

We all take these tippy-toe positions on foreign policy, but shit, after what Russia did. I say sell whatever former Soviet countries want from our weapon supply. With Putin making anti-U.S. comments today, trying to blame our COUNTRY for what happened is absurd. The last thing our country needs is to be involved with another War and both parties know that. Screw Russia, straight up.