What would happen if the U.S. Sent American soldiers as peace keepers to Georgia?

Question

How would Russia respond and can the US take them on?

Answer 1

it would escalate the problem...not a mater of winning or losing ..just a bad idea

Answer 2

We already did.  Since there's already a ceasefire in place, it doesn't make much of a difference unless someone violates the ceasefire.

Answer 3

we need to stay the h**l out of Georgia and not get involved.  After wasting our military all over the middle east  Most of our weapons are obsolete and the new ones are far too expensive.  a b-2 bomber runs at 2.7 billion per plane and the new f-22 costs a cool 2 billion per plane where the high end russian figher the su-costs them 36 million per plane.  Our we pricing ourselves too high to defend ourselves?

Answer 4

We can take them on but it could be seen from Russia as an act of war. Only the UN could do something like that.  Not another nation that doesn't exactly have the best relation with that particular nation.

Answer 5

russia would back the **** off and yea we would kick their ***

Answer 6

Depends on what they send, if they send a couple of soldiers, probably not much, but if you send a battle group, they'd probably stop looting Georgia and run.

Answer 7

us cannot take russia on they are overstretched in mid east and europe gets its oil from russia so usa does not want to destabalise its european alliances economically.

its just a good time to p**s off russians for american administration.

theres an election and the current bush administration can claim not to be accountable for the atrocities in georgia. and the next administration can clean up the mess in what ever country be in eurasia or mideast.

the us foreign policy agenda is the war on terror, not the ethnic conflict in georgia.

going there with peacekeepers would be a temporal band aid. the seperatist regions in georgia, have to be included in the economic infrastructure of georgia. no one is doing this and this is why this is happening. us cannot help georgia with this by sending peacekeepers.

it would not save face for the bush administration. they have the irak thing to deal with. pr nightmare much.

russia would not react to us peacekeepers, they are  economically/militaraly inferior.

russia has violated the ceasefire precisely because europe is not putting sanctions even if sarcozy talked about it, hes just trying to look like he can make decisions even though he married a retired supermodel.  



russia will not make a war with usa. there is an american election going on !  bush was in beijing during the olympics signifying that usa and china are on good enough terms. russia and ex soviet kgb putin has noooo allies to be in a war.

fyi, peacekeepers is an outdated term.. idealistic idea created by canada and the un in the mis 1900's that does not work. has not resolved any major conflicts since the word peacekeeper has been established. no offense to peacekeepers its noble but the term russian peacekeeper and american peacekeeper is highly oxymoronic.

usa knows that the sattelite countries are hot potatos ex-soviet militias no one wants to deal with that. if i were a american peacekeeper, i would not go to georgia because i would get shot by russian army calling themselves peacekeepers in a "ceasefire"....

Answer 8

A decision like this would be stupid beyond belief and would push Russia to the brink of war against the US.

The US has no business getting involved in such foreign entanglements.

Answer 9

Russia has given fair warning, they are kicked off over the missile defense system anyway.  Any time one under estimates his adversary

he will pay a huge price.  The people of the break-away regions of Georgia are Pro-Moscow, I would think it wise to leave them alone!

Remember winter is coming on and Russians love the snow, Hitler

found that out the hard way!

Answer 10

Negatively.

All it would take is one s***w up soldier to start war between the U.S. and Russia. Thats why the U.S. avoided Russian military sea vessels when they were delivering humanitarian aid in military sea vessels.

Answer 11

the only advantage russia has in warfare is its nuclear arsenal - in the event of war with russia, russia would launch a massive pre-emptive nuclear strike against NATO to avoid losing its weapons to a stealth attack from the US.

Russia has more nuclear weapons than the US and a much larger land mass to absorb a nuclear attack with - the country known as "russia" would win a nuclear war, as it is most likely to still exist in the aftermath, though its major cities would be rubble. The USA would no longer exist.

Answer 12

We don't have them to send, the U.S. military has been horribly overextended for years by the prolonged occupation of Iraq, and now people are calling for us to increase our commitments in Afghanistan.  There is no way we can win a war with Russia, we never could, the Cold War was about containment based on the fact that they'd go Nuclear before they would surrender, as would most Nuclear Powers, including the U.S.  Clinton's and Bush's treating of Russia as a conquered and irrelevant nation is what fueled the resentment that we are now seeing, the idea that we can dictate policy to foreign countries is something we have clung to for far too long, and until we let it go we are only going to see thing getting worse.  Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. pointed that out back in the '60s, and no one listened then either.

Answer 13

Georgia is already part of the USA and has several bases there already.

Answer 14

We seriously need to just keep out of Georgia... we have enough problems as it is. Frankly, we don't have the manpower at the moment to take one Iraq, Afghanistan, and Russia all at the same time. Sometimes we just need to sit back and watch the fireworks and let the UN do its job.  

Answer 15

The US would get the c**p kicked out of them. You don't go into somebody else's yard and tell them what the rules are.

Answer 16

where would we get the soldiers all them are in Iraq! and it would never happen with out the UN support!

Answer 17

mutually assured destruction