Topic: Russia's chic uniform 'sends soldiers to hospital'

[Highwind Dragoon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20101215/od_afp/russiamilitaryfashionoffbeat

[X]

Those uniforms look as though Russia's going back to the age before the so-called communist movement appeared. And you'd think the fasion desiners would know about the cold, harsh russian winters before designing their products for military application.

-X

[Mooning Freddy]

Well, you know what they say... If you can't stand the cold, don't join the Russian army! 

That DOES sound kinda gay, actually. Extra-thin chick new uniform? In the Russian cold? What was the fashion designer thinking?
Oui, zis uniform will mak ar soljers so sexy! Oui oui! Oh-la-la! 

Those uniforms look as though Russia's going back to the age before the so-called communist movement appeared.

Actually, that has been the general direction in which Russia was heading ever since the USSR disintegrated.
All of the Soviet symbols have been replaced with National Russian symbols; for example, the Russian Coat of Arms is a two-headed eagle, a symbol which has been used as the symbol of the Russian Empire. 

Plus, the Putin era had (probably still has) an outbreak of Russian nationalism. Not altogether a good thing, as Putin worked very hard to make sure all of Russia's neighbors maintain close economic relations with Russia, rather then with the European Union.

His efforts led to several violent and quite possibly unneeded  conflicts, like the war in Georgia.

[Jorge D. Fuentes]

'chic'  means 'cool' or 'in style'.  It doesn't mean 'chick'.

[X]

Plus, the Putin era had (probably still has) an outbreak of Russian nationalism. Not altogether a good thing, as Putin worked very hard to make sure all of Russia's neighbors maintain close economic relations with Russia, rather then with the European Union.

His efforts led to several violent and quite possibly unneeded  conflicts, like the war in Georgia.

He also planted the communist flag on northern soil for whatever stupid reason.

-X

[Mooning Freddy]

No, you do not understand, senor Jorge! Chic is ze zexy, like ze sexy chick, you zee whot I mean?

[Dark Nemesis]

No, you do not understand, senor Jorge! Chic is ze zexy, like ze sexy chick, you zee whot I mean?

Ahahahahahahahahaha!!! 

[Harrycombs]

His efforts led to several violent and quite possibly unneeded  conflicts, like the war in Georgia.

The war was Georgia's fault. Georgia started it by attacking the independent nation of South Ossetia. Russia just ended it.

[Gunlord]

This is what happens when you go for form over function. ~_~

[Highwind Dragoon]

The war was Georgia's fault. Georgia started it by attacking the independent nation of South Ossetia. Russia just ended it.

It was not, South Ossetia was Georgian territory, disputed or not.

[Sumac]

It was not, South Ossetia was Georgian territory, disputed or not.

The conflict wasn't as much about territory, but more about old and bloody feud between two nations. If russians didn't intervene it most likely ended in another acts of genocide. 

[Harrycombs]

It was not, South Ossetia was Georgian territory, disputed or not.

South Ossetia had declared its independence in 1991. Russia has had peacekeepers there since then in order to protect them. Georgia invaded a territory where Russian peacekeepers had been stationed for nearly 20 years! It was completely Georgias fault!

[Highwind Dragoon]

Harry, what is it with you and backing corrupt human rights violating countries like russia and china?

Also Harry,you can't just declare independence without talking to the country you belong to first; you know, so they can possibly move military bases and people who wish to remain in Georgia can move before it happens.

[Harrycombs]

The American revolution would never have happened if we had to agree with the British on whether or not we could be independent.

There was popular support in South Ossetia to be independent from Georgia. I normally hate the policies of the Russian government, but this time they are not at fault. South Ossetia had maintained its independence for almost 20 years. Georgia had not taxed or directly controlled that area for decades. They should have expected retaliation if they invaded South Ossetia.


From Wikipedia: "According to the Tskhinvali election authorities, the referendum turned out a majority for independence from Georgia where 99% of South Ossetian voters supported independence and the turnout for the vote was 95%.[50] The referendum was monitored by a team of 34 international observers from Germany, Austria, Poland, Sweden and other countries at 78 polling stations.[51]"

[Mooning Freddy]

While I am not going to respond about the war in Georgia, because I know too little about it to have an actual opinion, I must say Highwind Dragoon is making a good point. It's not like any national group who live in a certain territory, and wish to have a local government rather than obey state law can just declare independence. If they could, there would be no law and that would be anarchy.

If there is any set of rules, which I see as the ultimate basis for modern democratic law, it's the United States Declaration of Independence.
A magnificent document, which was written to justify the right of the American colony to become independent from the British Empire.  
USA is an example for a country who did not have a national identity (as it was formed from different nations), and achieved its independence mostly out of political and economic reasons. And so it states:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Of course, England was not willing to let America slip out of their hands, and so a war followed.
This is what usually happens when a certain group tries to form an autonomy against the will of the state controlling it- the state uses military power in order to make it submit to its will; a lot like a slave demanding his freedom from his master, the master would certainly not let him get away. He would shoot him, or punish him.
Sometimes the military power is used rightfully, and sometimes not. But that can be argued.