South Ossetia conflict

[icecab21]

Well I guess the Amish will use technology by necessity. The idea of having more of a thought out purpose to how we use energy is a good idea. There are so many cultures out there that have great ideas and that are one reason technology is important because of the connections it can give and the ideas it can spread.

I think with technology it can really help us get back to nature in ways and that a mix is ideal. I am not fond of the idea of not being able to record the beauty of nature and use technology to go beyond normal human capabilities.

Amish is a life choice and that’s something that I find supportable. They don't go around trying to tell others how to live or destroying others means of life. No quest for power and controll over huge areas of land and people.


http://www.amish.net/faq.asp

Question: How do the Amish justify using things that they do not have for themselves, i.e., phones, cars, freezers, etc?

Answer: This question is much easier to understand if one is born into the Amish lifestyle. The Amish way of life is a chosen one. The Amish are not forced to live as they do. It is a matter of "drawing a line" at having things. When an Amish person has someone drive them somewhere in a car, they don't just hop in and go for a ride; there is a purpose to their trip, i.e., to go a distance to the Doctor, to visit family members at a distance, etc. The same goes for the phone and freezer. An Amish person would not just "talk" on the phone. They would use the phone for a specific utilitarian purpose, i.e., to order supplies for the farm, to call the Doctor or notify a distant family member of a death or major illness in the family. The call would be a conversation of purpose. Answer coordinated by THE BUDGET.

Question: How do the Amish control change?

Answer: There is change and has always been, even among the Amish lifestyle. Change is controlled by the people, usually with a district or group by a voice vote being taken. The church leaders do not have the only voice, members do, too. One change in one area is in the use of milking machines for farmers. Their use was okayed if that if farming was a means of livelihood, then with the new regulations imposed by local health officials, the change should be made. Of course, the milking machines can only be used to milk cows which would be quite different than, say electricity, which while it could be used for a specific good thing, it also has the potential for things not so good. Answer coordinated by THE BUDGET.

[NeonVomit]

Well, you got to respect them for that. They remind me of the Maasai in Kenya; they're aware of modern society, but reject it and prefer to stick to their traditional ways, and only use modern things (medicine, etc.) when they need to.

And in fact, I think we all have a bit to learn from them in terms of how to live pollution-free, energy-efficient lives!

[AGAG]

I guess the Earth would be happy to hear an EMP exploding in outer space.

[icecab21]

If the EMP has enough power it would directly kill millions. All data erased, all wires destroyed. That’s the horrible part of this all, if a lot of people die, then the earth will be better off, but not the people that die. It’s more of a matter of the earth will change slower with less humans since it’s not going to all of a sudden renew itself with fairies and unicorns. No matter how much assistance humans are giving the earth in its climate change it would still happen eventually and whole societies and populations are in for some displacement and changes. The growth rate of human population’s is unsustainable and this is going to make the future grim and bloody. Unless mankind can find ways to turn destruction into construction it’s sort of a question of being part of the inevitable or going against an inevitable and all that's in-between.

[browneyedgirl]

An EMP bomb does not outright kill people. Thats why it is believed it would be the weapon of choice in the future. After an EMP bomb knocks a civiliztion back 200 years into helplessness, an enemy can then come in and take over everything if they desire.
However, given the state of chaos, rampant damage to sanitation systems, etc. diseases would start spreading, and indirectly, yes, many people would die in the aftermath.

[AGAG]

Yes, directly it wouldn't kill anyone. Because of the current situation, I think Russia will be the first country to experience an EMP blast .

[icecab21]

Anything that destroys electronic systems will be a cause of death for many. I call that a direct kill since down the line of cause and effect an effect of loss of electronics is death for people in many circumstances. Turn the electricity off at the life support section of a hospital for a night and see what percent of people are still alive in the morning. While the deaths would be natural they would also be a direct affect of no longer being artificially kept alive

[browneyedgirl]

@icecab21, you have a good point there. Thousands of people on life support would die. Also, can you imagine being on the operating table if one of those bombs hit? Very bad.

Yes, directly it wouldn't kill anyone. Because of the current situation, I think Russia will be the first country to experience an EMP blast .

Yes, probably USA knows how to set one of those things off, too.
A guy at work mentioned that very idea. He said that if USA wanted to overthrow Russia it could be done relatively easy without too much damage on either side, by using several EMP bombs over the country. Then, swarm in before they had a chance to recover and defend themselves. EMP would disable a countrys missile defence arsenal, too. So, yeah, there maybe a dozen high-level uniformed guys in some US governmental backroom some place planning something like this for the future!

[stratobabius]

Since this has gone a bit off-topic, I'll help a bit.

[icecab21]

thats brilliant i can just imagine

[Morgana]

One little comment from Russian girl - why do you talk about that Russia has nuclear weapons? Hope that this mad world will never come to this. And I can tell you with confidence - Russia will never begin nuclear war without provocations from other countries. There is only one variant of Russia's application the nuclear weapons - an application the nuclear weapons from another country. What Russian troops do in Georgia? They protect Osettian nation of genocide. Yes, it's exactly genocide. Medvedev explaned everything quite clear, or maybe it is profitable for western news not to show all the truth. This war is a great occasion to accuse Rusiia of agression and another mortal sins because all the world is quiver against Russia. We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

[Shurik]

We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

Russia is big, has lots of oil and gas and sells loads of weapons mainly to those who oppose US policy. If Russia exports anything else than oil, gas, weapons and nuclear technology to Iran - please let me know. Don't sure if it makes you a strong country.

The world has no problem with Russia as a strong country, it has a problem with Russia imagining itself an empire again and trying to start a new cold war with the west - this is not smart (but what can you expect from an ex-KGB colonel) and will only cause you trouble.

As I see it - it would be better for Russia to join the west and use its influence on various regimes like Iran and Syria to ensure peace than to further fuel the conflicts by supplying those regimes with the latest weapons and nuclear technologies. But hey, one can only hope ...

[NeonVomit]

We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

Russia is big, has lots of oil and gas and sells loads of weapons mainly to those who oppose US policy. If Russia exports anything else than oil, gas, weapons and nuclear technology to Iran - please let me know. Don't sure if it makes you a strong country.

The world has no problem with Russia as a strong country, it has a problem with Russia imagining itself an empire again and trying to start a new cold war with the west - this is not smart (but what can you expect from an ex-KGB colonel) and will only cause you trouble.

As I see it - it would be better for Russia to join the west and use its influence on various regimes like Iran and Syria to ensure peace than to further fuel the conflicts by supplying those regimes with the latest weapons and nuclear technologies. But hey, one can only hope ...

Yes, but at the same time you have to admit that the US hasn't exactly been overly considerate of Russia's concerns. As I mentioned earlier, how would the US react to Mexico signing a defence pact with China, while saying things like taking back New Mexico and parts of Texas? Or with Russia installing a missile defence shield on Cuba to defend from 'rougue states' (the missile shield itself is a waste of money and effort which could be spent protecting from real threats) I don't think the US would be very happy with either of those things, so of course Russia will react. It's totally expected.

[black death]

Medvedev explaned everything quite clear, or maybe it is profitable for western news not to show all the truth.

Russian politicians and media say half-truth and the western ones say half-truth as well. Yeah, you're right - it's profitable for westen news (or maybe not for news but for someone else) not to show all the truth, but it's also profitable for Russian leaders not to show all the truth. If Putin or Medvedev said for example "we attacked Georgia because we are not happy about losing control over ex-Soviet countries", would he have such a support of Russian citizens like he has right now??

Never listen to only one side (Medvedev) when you don't have a personal knowledge of a conflict. Have you been in Georgia? Do you know someone there? Keep in your mind that EVERYBODY has his own interests and everybody follows them - Russians as well as Americans or whoever else.

[Shurik]

We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

Russia is big, has lots of oil and gas and sells loads of weapons mainly to those who oppose US policy. If Russia exports anything else than oil, gas, weapons and nuclear technology to Iran - please let me know. Don't sure if it makes you a strong country.

The world has no problem with Russia as a strong country, it has a problem with Russia imagining itself an empire again and trying to start a new cold war with the west - this is not smart (but what can you expect from an ex-KGB colonel) and will only cause you trouble.

As I see it - it would be better for Russia to join the west and use its influence on various regimes like Iran and Syria to ensure peace than to further fuel the conflicts by supplying those regimes with the latest weapons and nuclear technologies. But hey, one can only hope ...

Yes, but at the same time you have to admit that the US hasn't exactly been overly considerate of Russia's concerns. As I mentioned earlier, how would the US react to Mexico signing a defence pact with China, while saying things like taking back New Mexico and parts of Texas? Or with Russia installing a missile defence shield on Cuba to defend from 'rougue states' (the missile shield itself is a waste of money and effort which could be spent protecting from real threats) I don't think the US would be very happy with either of those things, so of course Russia will react. It's totally expected.

First of all, I do believe that the missile shield is not useless, you never know what to expect in this crazy world.

As I see it, the reason for US installing those systems is a threat from Iran, which is quite real considering the ayatollahs' regime and their batshit insane president. I don't understand why, in the year 2008, anyone in Russia might think USA would attack their country. Of course, being an ex-KGB colonel, educated and trained during the cold war, might affect the judgment a bit ... And this threat from Iran is partly Russia's fault anyway, because the russians are helping Iran with their nuclear program.

[Morgana]

Have you been in Georgia? Do you know someone there? Keep in your mind that EVERYBODY has his own interests and everybody follows them - Russians as well as Americans or whoever else.

Yes, I have been there, yes I know a lot of Georgians. I wouldn't talk about this conflict if I didn't know about it much.

And Shurik, Russia didn't start a new cold war, our actions are just an ANSWER, don't forget, we didn't start this war, Saakashvili did.

[NeonVomit]

We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

Russia is big, has lots of oil and gas and sells loads of weapons mainly to those who oppose US policy. If Russia exports anything else than oil, gas, weapons and nuclear technology to Iran - please let me know. Don't sure if it makes you a strong country.

The world has no problem with Russia as a strong country, it has a problem with Russia imagining itself an empire again and trying to start a new cold war with the west - this is not smart (but what can you expect from an ex-KGB colonel) and will only cause you trouble.

As I see it - it would be better for Russia to join the west and use its influence on various regimes like Iran and Syria to ensure peace than to further fuel the conflicts by supplying those regimes with the latest weapons and nuclear technologies. But hey, one can only hope ...

Yes, but at the same time you have to admit that the US hasn't exactly been overly considerate of Russia's concerns. As I mentioned earlier, how would the US react to Mexico signing a defence pact with China, while saying things like taking back New Mexico and parts of Texas? Or with Russia installing a missile defence shield on Cuba to defend from 'rougue states' (the missile shield itself is a waste of money and effort which could be spent protecting from real threats) I don't think the US would be very happy with either of those things, so of course Russia will react. It's totally expected.

First of all, I do believe that the missile shield is not useless, you never know what to expect in this crazy world.

As I see it, the reason for US installing those systems is a threat from Iran, which is quite real considering the ayatollahs' regime and their batshit insane president. I don't understand why, in the year 2008, anyone in Russia might think USA would attack their country. Of course, being an ex-KGB colonel, educated and trained during the cold war, might affect the judgment a bit ... And this threat from Iran is partly Russia's fault anyway, because the russians are helping Iran with their nuclear program.

Iran do not possess the capability to launch a nuclear missile to reach Europe - and they're not crazy enough to do it even if they did, because they know very well what the response will be. The ayatollahs are very, very crafty and politically savvy, and thinking them to be otherwise is a dangerous underestimation. Ahmedinijahjeiajjdad does not possess the power to start a war - he needs the approval of the Council of Experts, and that is not what they want. They have other aims.

North Korea cannot reach America or Europe with any of their missiles, so no point in claiming them as a potential threat.

Is the shield meant to defend against Russia? If they wanted to, they could destroy it with fast, low flying aircraft before it could ever be used.

It is truly useless. I'd rather see the money and effort put into tightening ground security - the threat of a radical group somehow acquiring the materials to make a 'home made' nuclear device, sneak it into Europe and setting it off is far greater than any country launching a missile. It's all political grandstanding and a loss of focus on what the real threats are.

Of course Russia knows America would never attack them - and vice versa. What would anyone gain from it? (save to fulfil miditek's End Times prophecy) This is all about preserving their sphere of influence. You don't see America meddling with countries like Burma or North Korea - that's China's neighbourhood and right or wrong, they leave them alone. Sure, they'll talk and say things but it stops there. Russia wants to remind everyone else to leave their neighbourhood alone as well. Just like America wasn't happy with the USSR's links to Cuba, or if China got overly friendly with, say, Mexico.

Do I agree with that? Not really, but that's just how things are. Russia wants to be taken seriously again. The world mostly ignored their concerns about Kosovo, so they're just reacting to that. Did anyone really expect anything different?

[NeonVomit]

Here's an interesting article I found:

In the aftermath of the Georgian conflict, the Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has laid down five principles that he says will guide Russian foreign policy.

The new Moscow rules are not a blueprint for a new "Cold War". That was a worldwide ideological and economic struggle. This is much more about defending national interests.

Going back to the 19th Century?

The principles, with their references to "privileged interests" and the protection of Russian citizens, would probably seem rather obvious to Russian leaders of the 19th Century. They would seem rather mild to the Stalin and his successors, who saw the Soviet Union extending communism across the globe.

In some ways, we are going back to the century before last, with a nationalistic Russia looking out very much for its interests, but open to co-operation with the outside world on issues where it is willing to be flexible.

President Medvedev's principles do not, for example, necessarily exclude Russian agreement to continuing the strong diplomatic stance against Iran. And energy contracts are not necessarily threatened.

Above all, what they tell us is that the Georgia conflict was for Russia, in Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov's words, a "long-cherished moment of truth", which has created a new "clarity".

Here are the principles, in the words which President Medvedev used in an interview with the three main Russian TV channels (translated by the BBC Monitoring Service).

1. International law

"Russia recognises the primacy of the basic principles of international law, which define relations between civilised nations. It is in the framework of these principles, of this concept of international law, that we will develop our relations with other states."

2. Multi-polar world

"The world should be multi-polar. Unipolarity is unacceptable, domination is impermissible. We cannot accept a world order in which all decisions are taken by one country, even such a serious and authoritative country as the United States of America. This kind of world is unstable and fraught with conflict."

3. No isolation

"Russia does not want confrontation with any country; Russia has no intention of isolating itself. We will develop, as far as possible, friendly relations both with Europe and with the United State of America, as well as with other countries of the world."

4. Protect citizens

"Our unquestionable priority is to protect the life and dignity of our citizens, wherever they are. We will also proceed from this in pursuing our foreign policy. We will also protect the interest of our business community abroad. And it should be clear to everyone that if someone makes aggressive forays, he will get a response."

5. Spheres of influence

"Russia, just like other countries in the world, has regions where it has its privileged interests. In these regions, there are countries with which we have traditionally had friendly cordial relations, historically special relations. We will work very attentively in these regions and develop these friendly relations with these states, with our close neighbours."

Asked if these "priority regions" were those that bordered on Russia he replied: "Certainly the regions bordering [on Russia], but not only them."

And he stated: "As regards the future, it depends not just on us. It also depends on our friends, our partners in the international community. They have a choice."

The implications

Those therefore are the stated principles. What implications do they have?

To take them in the order he presented them:

The primacy of International Law: This on the face of it sounds encouraging. But Russia signed up to Security Council resolution 1808 in April this year, which reaffirmed "the commitment of all Member States to the sovereignty, independence and territorial integrity of Georgia... " - and has since abandoned that position.

It argues that a Georgian attack on South Ossetia on 7/8 August invalidated its commitment and required that it defend its citizens there. But it perhaps cannot proclaim its faith in international law and at the same time take unilateral action.

This principle therefore has to be seen as rather vague.

The world is multi-polar: This means that Russia will not accept the primacy of the United States (or a combination of the US and its allies) in determining world policy. It will require that its own interests are taken into account

The Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov hinted at what this really means. "There is a feeling that Nato again needs frontline states to justify its existence," he said in a speech. He was putting down another marker against the extension of Nato membership to Ukraine and Georgia.

Russia does not seek confrontation: Again this sounds hopeful but it based on the requirement that Russia's needs are met first. If the world agrees to its demands, then it is happy to be friends. But if not... therein lies the warning.

Protecting its citizens: The key phrase here is "wherever they are". This was the basis on which Russia went to war in South Ossetia and it contains within it the potential for future interventions - over Crimea, for example, populated by a majority Russian-background population yet owned by Ukraine only since 1954. If Ukraine looked set to join Nato, would Russia claim the protection of its "citizens" there?

Privileged interests: In this principle President Medvedev was getting down to the heart of the matter. Russia is demanding its own spheres of influence, especially, but not only, over states on its borders. This has the potential for further conflict if those "interests" are ignored.

And as anyone who watches the BBC will know, they've always been very critical of Putin's policies and methods.

[miditek]

We are strong country, and of course Mr. Bush and Mr. Saakashvili don't like it.

I don't think that Bush or Saakashvilli have a problem with Russia being strong economically or militarily. Or in other words, a hungry bear could be significantly more dangerous that one with a full stomach. Russia is no longer the superpower that the Soviet Union was, but it does remain a great power, with superpower nuclear capabilities.

The entire situation is rather complex, and the outcome of many events will have far reaching consequences.

Let's start with Georgia. It's easy to understand why former Soviet satellites, such as Georgia, Poland, Czech Republic, and the Ukraine, would probably find membership in NATO to be very attractive. No one in eastern Europe wishes to be under the Kremlin's jackboot again, and they are, of course, very fearful of Moscow.

Now the way that the NATO expansion occurred, beginning with the *Clinton* administration, and continued by the Bush administration, certainly would give the Kremlin something to keep an eye on. Why Clinton and the second Bush did this is completely beyond me- or rather the way that they did it. Russia was having some very serious economic problems during those times, and it is very unlikely that we would have seen 50,000 T-72 tanks rolling into the former Soviet republics or western Europe, for that matter.

Russia had suffered a great deal at the hands of first Napoleon I, then Kaiser Wilhelm II, and finally of course, Hitler. We really don't need to go into detail regarding Stalin's crimes, but he killed millions as well during the Great Terror. I can see why Russia not only wants to secure her borders, but also most likely prefers to have a buffer zone. I read in Churchill's wartime memoirs that Stalin feared that Germany would be back in twenty years, and more powerful that ever. When you lose millions of citizens due to three outside dictators in less than 150 years, securing your borders certainly does not seem unreasonable

I've always wondered what the Hell that invaders of Russia were thinking- I mean, good grief it is a country that spans something like eleven time zones, and its people are used to hardships that would kill most other countries!

(the missile shield itself is a waste of money and effort which could be spent protecting from real threats).

A very good assessment that I partially agree with. If I were a terrorist, I would be looking for something that was at least somewhat portable, and that could be used via remote detonation. Not a missile. Although there are other possible scenarios- such as using Scud "D" series missiles with nuclear warheads, and launching them from container ships from a hundred or two hundred nautical miles off of the coast of America. Missile defense systems then begin to look a bit more attractive then.

And this threat from Iran is partly Russia's fault anyway, because the russians are helping Iran with their nuclear program.

Another good assessment, although I consider Russia completely responsible for the current crisis. If they were not helping Iran with its program, then they would not be this close to having the bomb. Moreover, Russia has also sold a nearly three quarters of a billion dollar SAM air defense system to Iran- which I would presume is being used to guard the Bushrer facilities against aerial attack by the IDF.

Russia is also providing similiar weapons to Syria, in addition to state of the art anti-tank and anti-ship missiles to Hezbollah. It seems that Russia is now the new Wal-Mart for terrorists that are shopping for weapons, and that is far more stupid to do than going into Georgia and slapping them around. This is Russia after all, and since it it bullies and interferes with its neighbors so frequently, such actions hardly even raise an eyebrow anymore in the West, other than diplomatic protests and resolutions. Russia supplying essentially all of Israel's major enemies certainly would seem to fit into Ezekiel's scenario of her being dragged into the coming conflict with "hooks in her mouth" by her client states in the Middle East.

Bush has been sending humanitarian aid to the Georgians, via U.S. warships, which is not a bad thing- to give food, medicine, and other essentials, but the Kremlin has howled with rage about that as well. Stil, I don't think that they will be firing on the U.S. fleet- that would be another stupid thing to do, and I can't think of any Russian sailor that would want to go head to head with the U.S. Navy.

To summarize, perhaps we could agree on the following points-

- Clinton and Bush were foolish for the way that they handled the NATO
expansion- and equally dumb for bringing it to the very borders of
Russia.

- Tibilisi was stupid for provoking Moscow

- The South Ossetians were idiotic for provoking Tibilisi
and then instigating the Kremlin to react violently.

- Russia is stupid for supplying Iran with nuclear technology, and
advanced weapons to nearly all of Israel's major enemies.

All of this, to me at least, seems to have the makings for a great deal of trouble for nearly concerned.

[NeonVomit]

To summarize, perhaps we could agree on the following points-

- Clinton and Bush were foolish for the way that they handled the NATO
expansion- and equally dumb for bringing it to the very borders of
Russia.

- Tibilisi was stupid for provoking Moscow

- The South Ossetians were idiotic for provoking Tibilisi
and then instigating the Kremlin to react violently.

- Russia is stupid for supplying Iran with nuclear technology, and
advanced weapons to nearly all of Israel's major enemies.

All of this, to me at least, seems to have the makings for a great deal of trouble for nearly concerned.

I agree with those points, although I wouldn't say Russian purposefully sold weapons to Israel's enemies as some sort of tactical move - they'll sell anything to anyone who's buying, really. If it pisses off the US and EU, so much the better in their book.

[miditek]

To summarize, perhaps we could agree on the following points-

- Clinton and Bush were foolish for the way that they handled the NATO
expansion- and equally dumb for bringing it to the very borders of
Russia.

- Tibilisi was stupid for provoking Moscow

- The South Ossetians were idiotic for provoking Tibilisi
and then instigating the Kremlin to react violently.

- Russia is stupid for supplying Iran with nuclear technology, and
advanced weapons to nearly all of Israel's major enemies.

All of this, to me at least, seems to have the makings for a great deal of trouble for nearly concerned.

I agree with those points, although I wouldn't say Russian purposefully sold weapons to Israel's enemies as some sort of tactical move - they'll sell anything to anyone who's buying, really. If it pisses off the US and EU, so much
the better in their book.

I asked one of my Russian friends at work today about all of this, and he replied that he simply did not understand all of the excitement about Georgia since Russia has been at odds with her neighbors for hundreds of years already.

I don't think that Russia had some sort of evil designs against Israel either- essentially it's a matter of "business as usual" for the Kremlin; but I also think that they are way too cozy with too many thuggish regimes such as Iran and Syria and that eventually, those business relationships will come back to haunt her.

[NeonVomit]

Well, it wasn't like they were overly bothered when Iraq's army got squashed in '03. They're not too concerned about their customers, it seems

[browneyedgirl]

http://news.mobile.msn.com/en-us/articl ... d=26525962

Herbert Hoover rides again.

Its OK to give other nations money when they need it, but this much moola could have been put to good use here in USA. And I'm not talking about the LABELED lazy people on food stamps&welfare. I'm talking about bridges and highways that really need mending, and colleges that need loan funds to help students, employment programs, and enviromental programs, etc. etc. The list is endless!

Also, I wonder how Russia&neigboring countries felt about this gift? Not that I really care, its none of their damn business, but I just wonder how they feel about their "enemy" being given so much humanitarian aid from USA?

[icecab21]

lets look at some programms people scream against

lets see, have the community get together to pay 8 thousand a year to educate someone and have them get a paying job in the community, or pay 30 thousand a year to hav them in jail.

pay 15 thousand a year to house someone while they get their education to become a more productive member of the community, or pay 50 thousand in police and medical bills to have them be homeless and have to commite crime to feed their addiction.

why is it that people only want charity to do this kind of things and cant set up government groups to help out what does not get done by charity and business?

seems people get freaked out about tax to not care about cost-benefit .
the poorer people have the greatest costs with their economies of scale.
either let people keep the money they make or put the money to use helping create recurring income

[AGAG]

Icecab, that's called DEMOCRACY...

[R.F.]

Well... I`ve taken a little vacacation and refreshed my mind... Good thing - everyone speaks in more sincere words. US supports their allies in Caucasus, Russia wants a multi-polar world. Less lies about "democracies" and so on. After all, we are just animals that want to survive. Sooner or later one pride destroys another. And the truth for you depends on the side you`re representing. Sorry for such pessimistic words, but it will be very difficult for us - I mean the whole mankind - to overcome our animaistic nature.
Yes, and please, remember this word - Ingushetia. Guess, it will appear soon in western media. Maybe a subject of next western propaganda attack.