Obama '08?

Diest TKO wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
old europe wrote:
And as a P.S. to what nimh already pointed out...

Quote:
John McCain's top foreign policy adviser, Randy Scheunemann, defended McCain's direct criticism of Russia in the early hours of the crisis.

"Sen. McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here," he said, dismissing the notion that Georgia's move into its renegade province had precipitated the crisis. "I don't think you can excuse, defend, explain or make allowance for Russian behavior because of what is going on in Georgia."

That last sentence, in particular, is almost exactly the same position that critics in Europe took when America invaded Iraq. That despite of the legitimate concern about what Saddam had been doing, it didn't warrant a unilateral military intervention and violation of sovereignty of a small, militarily inferior country by a superpower - with a vested interest in the region.

There's irony there that I'm sure McCain missed by a mile. LOL

I think McCain is right about condemning Russia's acts, but I'd note that Obama didn't support them as much as called for a thought out bureaucratic response.

Condemning Russia is one thing, but what would McCain have the US do? Are we so used to flexing our military muscles that we've atrophied in our other ones? If we are to help Georgia, I think we should be organizing interantionally.

Is Russia going to take us seriously? We are stretched out in two wars already.

T
K
O

The problem is that, sure, Russia has now started an invasion of at least South Ossetia - probably of Abkhazia, too, and has been bombing targets in Georgia proper. And yes, Russia has certainly been considering that option for a while, and was well prepared.

But if "McCain is clearly willing to note who he thinks is the aggressor here" he should also note that it was Georgia that started the current conflict and is directly responsibe for possibly hundreds of deaths (reports say between 1,400 and 1,600 men, women and children were killed in the attack on Tskhinvali) and tens of thousands of Ossetian refugees.

0 Replies

On a terrifyingly related note, what do the people who actually (currently) matter have to say?

What was Bush's response?
NATO?
UN?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

On a terrifyingly related note, what do the people who actually (currently) matter have to say?

What was Bush's response?
NATO?
UN?

T
K
O

The United Nations Security Council held, I think, four meetings on the issue of Georgia in the past couple of days. However, Russia is a veto member of the Security Council, so there hasn't been much of a visible result yet. Behind the scenes, work seems to be going on to get some ceasefire agreement drafted.

For the European Union, French Foreign Minister Bernard Kouchner (France is currently presiding over the European Council) arrived in Tbilisi today, together with the Chairman-in-Office of the OSCE, Finnish Foreign Minister Alexander Stubb.

The United States has sent somebody (forgot his name) to Tbilisi, I think on Friday.

Don't know about NATO.

0 Replies

C I
"Bashing Russia for what we've done to Iraq is counter-productive. I'm sure most in Europe and Asia just laugh at our rhetoric. "

All the people around the globe feel sorry for the innocent Americans and laught at their adminstration.

0 Replies

Diest TKO wrote:

On a terrifyingly related note, what do the people who actually (currently) matter have to say?

What was Bush's response?
NATO?
UN?

T
K
O

... and there's a thread in the Internationl News forum, starting with current events, and this one here in the Politics forum that was started a while ago.

0 Replies

Make a radical change.
We
the poor innocent victims of your Governments barbaric( corporate controlled) adminstrations( whether Dems/reps) wish to hug you all to enjoy our beeming smile and bewitching look.

Use your choice and join with us.
V R not against U
R U with us?

0 Replies

The last few sentenses from a noteworthy article which reflects my views.

"Lakoff acknowledges that both academic and political cultures are slow to change. But he is optimistic, pointing to the way in which the growth of cognitive psychology has undermined the rational-actor model that long dominated economics. In his own field, Lakoff predicts that "brain-based linguistics" will soon become the new standard - indeed, eclipsing Chomsky.

And despite his setbacks, Lakoff is not giving up on politics. He is still confidant that his ideas can make a difference to Democrats. When he wrote Thinking Points, his handbook for progressive activism, he sent the first copy to Barack Obama. "I don't know if he read it," Lakoff says, as a wide grin flashes across his face, "but a number of people have observed that if you look through Thinking Points, it is the Obama campaign."

http://chronicle.com/free/v54/i49/49b00601.htm

0 Replies

(Show some tolerance and change the system which is rotten to the core.
I am not an American nor a supporter of any individual. I am a die hard Gandhi cum Karl marx globalist.
But i speak with you all with my faulty English) Here is a conservative who reflects my views in better English

"The logic behind the candidacy of Barack Obama is not, in the end, about Barack Obama. It has little to do with his policy proposals, which are very close to his Democratic rivals' and which, with a few exceptions, exist firmly within the conventions of our politics. It has little to do with Obama's considerable skills as a conciliator, legislator, or even thinker. It has even less to do with his ideological pedigree or legal background or rhetorical skills. Yes, as the many profiles prove, he has considerable intelligence and not a little guile. But so do others, not least his formidably polished and practiced opponent Senator Hillary Clinton.

Obama, moreover, is no saint. He has flaws and tics: Often tired, sometimes crabby, intermittently solipsistic, he's a surprisingly uneven campaigner.

A soaring rhetorical flourish one day is undercut by a lackluster debate performance the next. He is certainly not without self-regard. He has more experience in public life than his opponents want to acknowledge, but he has not spent much time in Washington and has never run a business. His lean physique, close-cropped hair, and stick-out ears can give the impression of a slightly pushy undergraduate. You can see why many of his friends and admirers have urged him to wait his turn. He could be president in five or nine years' time-why the rush?

But he knows, and privately acknowledges, that the fundamental point of his candidacy is that it is happening now. In politics, timing matters. And the most persuasive case for Obama has less to do with him than with the moment he is meeting. The moment has been a long time coming, and it is the result of a confluence of events, from one traumatizing war in Southeast Asia to another in the most fractious country in the Middle East. The legacy is a cultural climate that stultifies our politics and corrupts our discourse.

Obama's candidacy in this sense is a potentially transformational one. Unlike any of the other candidates, he could take America�-finally

http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200712/obama
Bitty Bottle bought some butter
The butter Bitty Bottle bought was bitter
So
Bitty Bottle bought some other butter
to make thebitter butter better.
Rama

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

That's the reason Russia acted now when the US is already over-stretched in our military, and our ability to call in our allies have been weakened

True in part .. (I mean, they acted now because Georgia tried to take South-Ossetia back; but the reason they can invade the country like this now with supreme self-confidence is because they know what you just said. Russia is riding high right now, and the US isnt.)

cicerone imposter wrote:

Bashing Russia for what we've done to Iraq is counter-productive. I'm sure most in Europe and Asia just laugh at our rhetoric.

Absolutely untrue. What alternative to "bashing Russia" do you propose when it invades a country? Sit back and relax? Nod and smile?

Many across Eastern Europe, and certainly the Georgians themselves, want the US (and the EU) to be more assertive, to act with more force.

Georgia thread on A2K: Russians Push Past Separatist Area to Assault Central Georgia

0 Replies

Ramafuchs wrote:

Make a radical change.
We
the poor innocent victims of your Governments barbaric( corporate controlled) adminstrations( whether Dems/reps) wish to hug you all to enjoy our beeming smile and bewitching look.

Use your choice and join with us.
V R not against U
R U with us?

Please. I don't want to hear from any Germans their opinion of 'barbaric government' for at least another 100 years.

There are still people living who can testify to your government's barbaric history.

Address your own corporate controlled government's failure to support UN sanctions against Saddam.

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

cicerone imposter wrote:
Bashing Russia for what we've done to Iraq is counter-productive. I'm sure most in Europe and Asia just laugh at our rhetoric.

Absolutely untrue. What alternative to "bashing Russia" do you propose when it invades a country? Sit back and relax? Nod and smile?

Many across Eastern Europe, and certainly the Georgians themselves, want the US (and the EU) to be more assertive, to act with more force.

Certainly true, even though it's hard to conclude what that could mean in practical terms...

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Please. I don't want to hear from any Germans their opinion of 'barbaric government' for at least another 100 years.

Even though I think Rama is slightly nutty, you'll certainly hear from me my opinion of 'barbaric government' whenever that's warranted.

0 Replies

Germany's recent history, not just in WWI and WWII but in supporting Saddam the Butcher against the UN sanctions and in pursuit of the Almighty Deutschmark, causes me to have little patience with any German who rants about another government's 'barbaric' behavior or any supposed 'corporate control' of another government.

0 Replies

real life wrote:

Germany's recent history, not just in WWI and WWII but in supporting Saddam the Butcher against the UN sanctions and in pursuit of the Almighty Deutschmark, causes me to have little patience with any German who rants about another government's 'barbaric' behavior or any supposed 'corporate control' of another government.

The World Wars were a tragedy. Millions of people got killed. Millions of Germans, too. Not all of them were eager supporters of the wars, of the regime, of the ideology, of the Holocaust, or of Hitler.

I think there's a lot of blame to spread around on almost everyone for propping up and arming Saddam and, later, subverting the Oil For Food programme. That includes American companies too:

Quote:

The United States administration turned a blind eye to extensive sanctions-busting in the prewar sale of Iraqi oil, according to a new Senate investigation.

A report released last night by Democratic staff on a Senate investigations committee presents documentary evidence that the Bush administration was made aware of illegal oil sales and kickbacks paid to the Saddam Hussein regime but did nothing to stop them.

The scale of the shipments involved dwarfs those previously alleged by the Senate committee against UN staff and European politicians like the British MP, George Galloway, and the former French minister, Charles Pasqua.

In fact, the Senate report found that US oil purchases accounted for 52% of the kickbacks paid to the regime in return for sales of cheap oil - more than the rest of the world put together.

(source)

It wasn't a one-sided thing. Companies of almost all Western nations were profiting. Pretending that American companies were not involved is just as silly as claiming that Germany, as a nation, was "supporting Saddam the Butcher against the UN sanctions".

And you lose me completely with the "Almighty Deutschmark". No clue why the former German currency somehow precludes Germans from criticizing other countries governments.

The fact that the US Dollar is used as a reserve currency around the globe certainly doesn't preclude Americans from criticizing foreign countries and their governments.

---

You know, if all the people from all the countries that, in the past, have fought wars of aggression, had murderous cliques heading their nations, have a history of ethnic conflict, of civil war, of suppression of minorities or of genocide - there wouldn't be anybody around who could criticize dictatorships, ethnic cleansing, genocide or war today.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Even though I think Rama is slightly nutty...

Slightly nuttly!
How can you say that?
Rama Lama Ding Dong makes crystal clear points 100% of the time.

0 Replies

H2O_MAN wrote:

old europe wrote:

Even though I think Rama is slightly nutty...

Slightly nuttly!
How can you say that?
Rama Lama Ding Dong makes crystal clear points 100% of the time.

I'm sorry. I didn't take into account that calling him slightly nutty would be an insult to you...

:wink:

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

nimh wrote:
cicerone imposter wrote:
Bashing Russia for what we've done to Iraq is counter-productive. I'm sure most in Europe and Asia just laugh at our rhetoric.

Absolutely untrue. What alternative to "bashing Russia" do you propose when it invades a country? Sit back and relax? Nod and smile?

Many across Eastern Europe, and certainly the Georgians themselves, want the US (and the EU) to be more assertive, to act with more force.

Certainly true, even though it's hard to conclude what that could mean in practical terms...

Bush has already spoken about Russia's overwhelming force against Georgia, but his voice was probably about as effective as no voice - or maybe "little" voice. It didn't change anything.

0 Replies

Real Life
What is your point about Germany. They certainly have the moral high ground over us. Russia has responded to what can be regarded as an ally. I don't think they are right but this bull about attacking a sovran nation is something the U.S. cant put forward without looking like a fool. What was what we did to Iraq?

0 Replies

rabel22 wrote:

Real Life
What is your point about Germany. They certainly have the moral high ground over us. Russia has responded to what can be regarded as an ally. I don't think they are right but this bull about attacking a sovran nation is something the U.S. cant put forward without looking like a fool. What was what we did to Iraq?

This war began in 1989 with Saddam's attack on Kuwait and our response in 1990.

Any discussion which leaves out that context and pretends that 2003 started the clock is a gross distortion of what the US has done and why.

0 Replies

real keeps falling back on: "
This war began in 1989 with Saddam's attack on Kuwait and our response in 1990."

Provide us with the justification for Bush's preemptive attack on Iraq in 2003?

WMDs? Al Qaeda's connection to Saddam? FYI (for the hundredth time) UN weapon's inspectors were in Iraq with no restrictions to look for WMDs, but Bush chased them out to start his war. There was no connection to Kuwait; Bush Jr and his administration never mentioned "Kuwait" to justify his war.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know