Obamamessiah on Georgia

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/08/11/obama-emerges-to-talk-about-georgia/ ^ | August 11, 2008

Obama today: "We should continue to push for a United Nations Security Council Resolution calling for an immediate end to the violence. This is a clear violation of the sovereignty and internationally recognized borders of Georgia – the UN must stand up for the sovereignty of its members, and peace in the world.".........JUST ONE LITTLE THING WRONG YOUR STATEMENT BARRY! Under Article 27 of the UN Charter, Security Council decisions on all substantive matters require the affirmative votes of nine members. A negative vote, or veto, by a PERMANENT MEMBER member prevents adoption of a proposal, even if it has received the required number of affirmative votes. The FIVE PERMANENT MEMBERS ARE:

1) The French Republic 2) The People's Republic of China 3) The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland 4) The United States of America 5) THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION!

SO BARRY OBAMA WANTS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO VOTE ON A PROPOSAL THAT RUSSIA ITSELF WOULD VETO!


IS THIS THE BEST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN COME UP WITH AS A CANDIDATE?

Armon Ayers wrote:SO BARRY OBAMA WANTS THE UN SECURITY COUNCIL TO VOTE ON A PROPOSAL THAT RUSSIA ITSELF WOULD VETO!


IS THIS THE BEST THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY CAN COME UP WITH AS A CANDIDATE?

Sadly, yes it is.

So what would Bush do?

He has blown what credibility he ever had on unnecessary misadventures- i.e.- Iraq. Yep, we need a whole bunch more like him. That would make them Ruskies behave.

Wrong question, Ziggy.

The question is what would John McCain or Bob Barr or any of the other candidates would do. It is clear Obama hasn't got a clue when it comes to foreign policy. You don't think that's an important little piece of information Americans need to consider?

This is one area that I certainly trust John McCain's 22 years experience in the Navy and 25 years in Congress a lot more then I do Barry's 3 years in the Senate proceed by is present votes in the Il. house.

Stephanie, by the time a successor is chosen, the Georgia thing will likely be over- one way or another. The more immediate question is what would/will Bush do? His adminsitration has repeatedly discarded diplomacy as an option when it involves countries prone to ongoing agressive militarism- which is what Russia's invasion of Georgia this week is. So the tough talking Texan is now left standing there in all his naked, formerly bombastic glory, reduced to meek sideline mutterances at the olympic games.

"A tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury- signifying nothing".

Perhaps if you knew what this is really all about you could speak with some clarity on the subject and not what GWB should or should not do.

With or without Iraq, Russia would not listen to the US on this matter. They do not want Georgia as a part of NATO and this is not GWB's failure. No President could pacify Russia and get them to withdraw on any other terms then those they are willing to accept and for you to imply the failure is GWB's is naive.

source

So ole' George W. is really standing tall these days, eh?

So what ever became of "Let every nation know ........................ that we shall pay any price .................................... liberty ?

How is our liberty at stake?

Oh. So Kennedy was not referring to liberty for peoples around the world?

You didn't answer the question. Is our liberty at stake, yes or no.

And while you're at it, tell me, do you think we should send in forces to defend Georgia to defend their liberty?

You didn't answer the question. Is our liberty at stake, yes or no.

Indirectly, yes. The credibility of America's highest public voice, the President, on any such matter is at stake- which makes America's credibility at stake. And, long term, our liberty is dependent to some significant degree or our credibility.

And while you're at it, tell me, do you think we should send in forces to defend Georgia to defend their liberty?

That depends on how serious we are about "friend ................ foe .............. pay any price ............... success of liberty, etc.

ziggy wrote:

You didn't answer the question. Is our liberty at stake, yes or no.

Indirectly, yes. The credibility of America's highest public voice, the President, on any such matter is at stake- which makes America's credibility at stake. And, long term, our liberty is dependent to some significant degree or our credibility.

That's a load of crap Frank. You're the one saying that America doesn't have any credibility because of GWB.

And I'm saying that no matter who the President is, given the circumstances of the situation with NATO, Georgia and Russia's determination to keep Georgia out, no American President could get Russia to pull out on any terms other then their own.

ziggy wrote:Oh. So Kennedy was not referring to liberty for peoples around the world?

Aaron, I answered your question. Now how about mine?

Aaron wrote:And I'm saying that no matter who the President is, given the circumstances of the situation with NATO, Georgia and Russia's determination to keep Georgia out, no American President could get Russia to pull out on any terms other then their own.

So what was Condi Rice doing in Georgia a couple weeks ago? Delivering the bad news that "You're own your own"?

OK, so you think Americans should be sent to fight and die for the liberty of other people? Should we intervene on their behalf? Should we intervene for the Chechan separatists? They want to be free too.

How about the Palestinians in the West Bank? They want to be free of Jewish settlers and Israeli checkpoints. Should we send US troops there too? Where is their liberty?

Or should we worry about restoring liberty in the USA first?

ziggy wrote:

ziggy wrote:Oh. So Kennedy was not referring to liberty for peoples around the world?

Aaron, I answered your question. Now how about mine?

Yes he was.

OK, so you think Americans should be sent to fight and die for the liberty of other people? Should we intervene on their behalf? Should we intervene for the Chechan separatists? They want to be free too.

I am not saying any of that. I am saying that in Georgia, for example, the only practical tool the U.S. has is diplomacy. But for years now the Bush apologists have poo-pooed the idea of diplomacy in lieu of military threats and interventions- usually against nations with mediocre military forces to deter our threats and intimidations. Now that some intelligent diplomacy is the about only tool we could possibly weild (in Georgia), our credibility for diplomacy is shot all to hell. We are reduced to mere whimpering objectors.

How about the Palestinians in the West Bank? They want to be free of Jewish settlers and Israeli checkpoints. Should we send US troops there too? Where is their liberty?

Maybe we should. After all, it is our armaments and our paid allies in that enabled those oppressions, with our blessings, for 60 years. I think we owe it to them, yes.

Or should we worry about restoring liberty in the USA first?

Are you kidding? The corporate owned Democratic and Republican parties want "liberty" for the corporations and for the military-industrial controllers. But they are not about to restore liberty to the American people at large. They have a lust for more and more power over real people. And they won't give it up without a fight.

There are some debts that can't be repaid. I don't think it is fair to send our young men & women off to fight and die for the liberty of other people. We need to protect about our own liberty which we cannot do by running about the globe fixing the ills of the world.

I believe in diplomacy, sure. However no amount of diplomacy is going to get Russia to back off in Georgia, and I think we all know that. Not that Barack Obama has a clue about diplomacy.

I agree with you about the situation in both parties. I would like to see a viable 3rd party emerge but do not think it will happen in my lifetime. I think a much more likely possibility is to educate grassroots conservatives about important issues like monetary policy and the military-industrial complex in order to get leaders elected who will value individual liberty. Those already in power have made it too difficult to raise money and get ballot access for third party candidates to be successful in time.

ziggy wrote:
I am not saying any of that. I am saying that in Georgia, for example, the only practical tool the U.S. has is diplomacy. But for years now the Bush apologists have poo-pooed the idea of diplomacy in lieu of military threats and interventions- usually against nations with mediocre military forces to deter our threats and intimidations. Now that some intelligent diplomacy is the about only tool we could possibly weild (in Georgia), our credibility for diplomacy is shot all to hell. We are reduced to mere whimpering objectors.

And I'm saying that if you believe diplomacy would work in this situation regardless of the President or our international credibility, you're a very naive man and you know LESS about foreign relations then Barrack Obama.

When the only tool we know how to use is a hammer, we look at every problem as a nail. Like the old horse pulling the plow along between the rows with blinders on, tunnel vision can sometimes be quite handy. GW Bush has tunnel vision to the inth degree.

GWB had less tunnel vision with Iraq then Russia does with Georgia. No amount of American diplomacy would work in this situation.

But I'm sure Barrack Obama could solve this problem diplomatically, huh Frank!!!

Obama adviser compares Putin to Hitler

Kate Connolly in Berlin guardian.co.uk, Tuesday August 12 2008 11:32 BST
Article history
The former US national security adviser, Zbigniew Brzezinski, has called on the world community to isolate Russia in protest over its campaign in the Caucasus, likening its tactics to those of "Hitler or Stalin".

Brzezinski, who was the national security adviser under President Jimmy Carter from 1977 to 1981, and is now an occasional adviser to the Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama, said the Russian prime minister, Vladimir Putin, was "following a course that is horrifyingly similar to that taken by Stalin and Hitler in the 1930s".

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/12/georgia

GWB had less tunnel vision with Iraq then Russia does with Georgia. No amount of American diplomacy would work in this situation.

Well, unless we accept your word as the authoritative gospel on it, we'll never know, will we?

Because America's ability to exercise practical international diplomacy anywhere has been squandeerd away with senseless saber rattling and unnecessary and reckless use of military might in an effort to achieve what would more properly be diplomatic goals.

ziggy wrote:

GWB had less tunnel vision with Iraq then Russia does with Georgia. No amount of American diplomacy would work in this situation.

Because America's ability to exercise practical international diplomacy anywhere has been squandeerd away with senseless saber rattling and unnecessary and reckless use of military might in an effort to achieve what would more properly be diplomatic goals.

I don't agree with you. America STILL wields considerable power all around the world and will continue to be a power for a long time to come. If you think Iraq, Afghanistan and GWB destroyed that, then you never had much faith in American diplomacy to begin with.

The thing that would do more harm to America is the same thing we did in the mid 70's, which was completely abandon a country despite our continued promises to the contrary. The question is, will we repeat that action in 09/10?