Obamamessiah on Georgia

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.

And that could avoided by simply not being so reckless about making irresponsible "continued promises".

But again, when one's only tool is a hammer, one tends to look at everything as a nail.

The question is, will we repeat that action in 09/10?

If the recent past is any indication, sooner would be better than later.

Well correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the consensus from the right is to take neither military nor diplomatic action.

Is that about what you guys are saying?

shermangeneral wrote:Well correct me if I'm wrong...

Now there's a full time job.

As usual, just dodge the question and try to impugn the poster.

No answer whatsoever.

No mas....

Of course we have to go through the motions and condeme Russia but's it's already been pointed out that as a permanent member of the security council, Russia can stop any and all UN sanctions and are you really willing to re-start the cold war and possibly WW3 over the Republic of Georgia?

In the real world, short of sending in troops, there is very little we can do. I understand you don't get that but your lack of comprehension doesn't change very basic simple facts.

And I don't have to impugn you Sherm. You do that all by your little ole self.

Just as I thought you guys have no proposals of your own.

Just criticize when the Dems do offer a plan of action.

Tweedle dee, the plan they offered won't work. They might as well have said, spread some pixie dust and it will make everything better. Can't you get it through your partisan skull that Russis has VETO power.

I guess you don't know what that word means. See if this helps!!!

ve·to

ve·to [vtō]
n (plural ve·toes)
1. right to reject legislation: the power of one branch of government to reject the legislation of another
2. exercise of the right to reject measures: the exercise of the power or right to reject something, especially a political measure
3. prohibition: an order prohibiting something


vt (past ve·toed, past participle ve·toed, present participle ve·to·ing, 3rd person present singular ve·toes)
1. reject a measure: to reject something such as a measure or government bill by veto
2. prohibit something: to refuse to consent to or approve something
My teacher vetoed the idea.



[Early 17th century. From Latin , “I forbid,” a formula used in ancient Rome by the Tribunes of the People when they opposed measures taken by either the Senate or the magistrates.]


-ve·to·er, n
Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2004 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

........................... Russis has VETO power

Then make them use it on the world stage then, by God. Don't fold without making them show their cards- including their trump veto card. Make 'em lay it out on the table at the U.N. for all to see. But this Bush bunch has so marginalized the U.S. diplomatically that it can't even muster the courage for a respectable showing of indignation at Russian agression against a tiny former satellite republic. That is absolutely pitiful.

Could either McCain or Obama or McKinney or Nader possibly do worse? I don't think so. Neither of them thinks that a physical swagger punctuated with verbal insults in the language of internationalspeak are good substitutes for informed and considered leadership.

Yeah yeah yeah Frank, I hear your indignation. I think you need to catch your breath and wipe the spittle off your screen before you go on. And be careful. At your age, you can bring on a heart attack with those kind of outburst.

Are you calm now?

To use your analogy, if GWB has destroyed our credibility in the world as you alledge, then it wasn't very strong to begin with, was it Frank!!!

Well that is obvious zig.

But this bunch on here are true believers.

Especially Aaron and Steph.

Whatever the republicans say they jump right in line.

So tell me Sherman, would you send troops to Georgia to protect them from the Russians?

shermangeneral wrote:Well correct me if I'm wrong but it looks like the consensus from the right is to take neither military nor diplomatic action.

Is that about what you guys are saying?

Talking to them won't do it.

We have no legitimate reason to retaliate against Russia. That Georgia isn't part of the USA.

We could stop importing from them and sending them things they need, I suppose.

This is not our problem, though. Russia poses no threat to the US. I suggest US citizens living and working in Georgia leave. I think we should support peaceful methods the Europeans propose.

The UN Security Council is incapable of doing anything to the Russians.

shermangeneral wrote:Just as I thought you guys have no proposals of your own.

Just criticize when the Dems do offer a plan of action.

Well that is obvious zig.

But this bunch on here are true believers.

Especially Aaron and Steph.

Whatever the republicans say they jump right in line.

Hey Sherm,

I have a newsflash for you. I'm not a leading contender for the President of the United States. I see no "plan" from "the Democrats". What I see is Barack Obama running off at the mouth and proving to anybody knows anything about how the UN Security Council that he is utterly clueless in the realm of foreign policy and that his closest advisors are equally clueless, or he doesn't have advisors.

What I'm telling you is that a person I would vote for to lead our nation has to have at least a rudimentary knowledge of foreign affairs and international organizations like the UN.

I'm also telling you that I would not support US military intervention on Georgia's behalf. It isn't in America's best interests to do so and even if we weren't occupying Iraq and Afghanistan I would say the same damn thing.

Aaron wrote:So tell me Sherman, would you send troops to Georgia to protect them from the Russians?

I'm still waiting for your solution Sherm.

The UN Security Council is incapable of doing anything to the Russians.

It could force Russia to either defend its conduct publicly, or at least to sit there and have the whole world watch at it is tried for its agressive acts against a neighbor state. That is one function of the U.N. and its Security Council- to act as a world stage from which to hear the crarges of members ones against others. And the exercise of a Russian veto over punsihmenst to itself would be the crowning moment, and would serve to vindicate the charges presented.

And which do you think is more important to Vladimir Putin Frank, what the world thinks of him or keeping NATO off of the Russian border?

JFK asked for a Security Council Resolution in 1962 to force them to get the missiles out of Cuba. Now, in 1962 the UN still had credibility...

I've seen it suggested we offer expedited membership in NATO to the Ukraine.

Ukraine, like Georgia is scheduled to come into NATO in December. It wouldn't suprise me to see similar actions in that country.

Aaron wrote:And which do you think is more important to Vladimir Putin Frank, what the world thinks of him or keeping NATO off of the Russian border?

Long term- maybe next month, maybe next year or in ten years- he will take into consideration how much international embarassment his nation has to face each time it takes it upon itself to invade and point one of its former republics in the direction it demands they march.

But the recent U.S. philosophy has been to rambo-rouse today and let tomorrow take care of tomorrow. In Georgia, that tomorrow is today. What Putin faces today in Georgia will affect what and how and if in the Ukraine in December and somewhere else next year or the year after.

Vladimir Putin couldn't care less about what the international community thinks of his invasion of Georgia. If he did, he would withdraw immediately now that there has been an international outcry. The US isn't the only nation objecting to the acts of war Russia is engaged in and we aren't the only nation in the world receiving news reports out of the region on an hourly basis.

It's the attitude that the US should fix the problems of the rest of the world that gets us into so much trouble in the first place. I don't agree with that attitude at all.

It's the attitude that the US should fix the problems of the rest of the world that gets us into so much trouble in the first place. I don't agree with that attitude at all.

I don't either. But that attitude is bred into Americans in significant part by trigger happy American Presidents and other "tough talking" zealots who pretend that what is needed to keep the world in line is more American militarism and more sabre rattling, and less candid diplomacy.

In my lifetime the most zealous presidential promoters of such bellicose belligerence have been Lyndon Johnson and GW Bush. But they are not alone.

ziggy wrote:

It's the attitude that the US should fix the problems of the rest of the world that gets us into so much trouble in the first place. I don't agree with that attitude at all.

I don't either. But that attitude is bred into Americans in significant part by trigger happy American Presidents and other "tough talking" zealots who pretend that what is needed to keep the world in line is more American militarism and more sabre rattling, and less candid diplomacy.

In my lifetime the most zealous presidential promoters of such bellicose belligerence have been Lyndon Johnson and GW Bush. But they are not alone.

It seems to me that Bush, like Johnson before him, has had a tremendous amount of help from the US Congress, Republican and Democrat alike.

It still takes us back to the topic of this thread, though. Barack Obama is clueless when it comes to international affairs. I have grave concerns about the distinct possibility we're going to have a President in a few short months who doesn't have a clear understanding of how the UN works when he is obviously very eager to rely so heavily on that organization.

What is Bush doing? What will Bush do? There isn't too much impact you or I or anybody else in America can have on a lame duck president within a few months of leaving office when he hasn't cared for the past two years. Who will be in that position 6 months from now is something we can have an impact on. Bashing Bush and the GOP doesn't improve the knowledge and skills of the Democratic nominee one iota.

The best we can hope for his he relies very heavily on Condi Rice. I seem to recall she was considered an expert on the former USSR and Russia.

It is not a defense of Obama to point out that Bush had bungled virtually every foreign policy endeavor in which he has engaged.

But I have aslked if McCain or Obama or McKinney or Nader could possibly do worse. I don't think they could.

ziggy wrote:It is not a defense of Obama to point out that Bush had bungled virtually every foreign policy endeavor in which he has engaged.

But I have aslked if McCain or Obama or McKinney or Nader could possibly do worse. I don't think they could.

One thing I've learned in life, Ziggy, is no matter how bad you think things are, they can always get worse.

And that's a completely unbaised opinion, one based on solid facts, right Frank...