’)It’s kind of funny that McCain has hit Obama for being presumptous, and yet it is McCain who put himself forward as if he were president and is now being called on it by the Georgian president
Yesterday, I heard Sen. McCain say, ‘We are all Georgians now,’’ Saakashvili said on CNN’s American Morning. ‘Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it’s time to pass from this. From words to deeds.’
Of course, McCain is just doing what the lobbyists on his staff tell him to. To expect any sort of sense to be made with this crew is folly.
But I thought there was a cease fire? After all, that’s what Tom Kaine told us and he said it was because of The One!
Excuse me, that would be Tim Kaine….
After all, that’s what Tom Kaine told us and he said it was because of The One!
No, no, it’s The Zero who has been displaying his presidential bona fides. The good folks all over the wingnutosphere tell me so.
McCain probably thinks he is a man who has repeatedly visited the country of Georgia and has a good personal relationship with Saakashvili.
While I know that Obama is a citizen of the world and all, I don’t recall how much experience he has in that part of the world. I think he saw the name of the country on a legislative bill once when it came up for a vote.
“McCain probably thinks he is a man who has repeatedly visited the country of Georgia and has a good personal relationship with Saakashvili.”
This would be the same Saakashvili who just went to the press to accuse his friend of empty rhetoric?
It wasn’t an accusation. It was a plea for help. Who do you think is more likely as president to actually perform deeds (and I’m not talking about an counter-invasion) in this particular situation, McCain or Obama? If you think a President Obama is going to do anything other than “strongly condemn” and make noises about the UN, then you’ve really bought into the Cult of Hope.
Yes, we know John McCain is all about voting for stupid and unnecessary uses of military force. Thanks, but no thanks.
“Who do you think is more likely as president to actually perform deeds (and I’m not talking about an counter-invasion) in this particular situation, McCain or Obama?”
If you’re not talking about a “counter-invasion” or some form of direct military conflict with the Russians, then just WTF are you talking about? If you take military action off the table, then just what exactly would McCain do that Obama wouldn’t?
Are you talking about McCain’s old call to kick Russia out of the G8? Maybe Obama doesn’t back that plan because it’s just plain stupid for one, because it’s actually impossible to do:
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/05/02/mccain-russia-g8/
So what else, aside from a military attack on Russian forces, would McCain do that Obama would balk on, uh?
How about not getting rid of our nuclear weapons? How about putting up a missle defense shield? How about placing missles and even nukes in additional locations like Poland? Would Obama even consider these deeds to discourage Russia from expanding into old territory?
sorry, I was typing fast: missiles rather than missles.
JWG, just out of curiosity, could you please run through the rest of the scenario as you think it would play out if we did any of the things you suggest?
A possible scenario was revealed when Reagan was president.
Now, you may consider these possible deeds ill advised, but your initial challenge was for me to point out what deeds President McCain might implement that President Obama would not.
Since you have chosen to avoid attacking those distinctions, it seems clear that we agree that McCain is likely to be more deed-oriented than Obama when it comes to addressing Russian expansion. Obama will state his standard “UN” crap and nothing will get done as usual.
Oh, I see. You and McCain miss the Cold War, when men were men, etcetera.
What I miss is the ability of someone on the left to comprehend what someone else actually writes.
Furthermore, the Cold War continued as long as we didn’t push hard against Soviet expansion. But I guess these days “Hope” is enough to ensure that Russia won’t actually absorb Georgian territory and continue to pick up additional lost satellites.
Oliver you have never written, or visited your congressman, have you?
Does this not make you a “lobbyist”
‘Well, very nice, you know, very cheering for us to hear that, but OK, it’s time to pass from this. From words to deeds.’
JWG thinks this is a “cry for help”…no, I think that post was your “cry for help”.
Since you have chosen to avoid attacking those distinctions, it seems clear that we agree that McCain is likely to be more deed-oriented than Obama when it comes to addressing Russian expansion. Obama will state his standard “UN” crap and nothing will get done as usual.
Translation: It’s better to do random shit that will probably make the situation worse than to think things through. And you guys say that McCain ISN’T like Bush…
Yeah, no one has been developing and debating the missile shield or placement of weapon systems in Poland until now. It wouldn’t be part of an overall plan at all. What Russia really needs is a stern condemnation from the UN. That’ll stop ‘em.
“Since you have chosen to avoid attacking those distinctions, it seems clear that we agree that McCain is likely to be more deed-oriented than Obama when it comes to addressing Russian expansion.”
Why would I spend my time attacking policies that you, yourself, can’t even explain?
Just for starters, we’ve already proposed plans to put components of our missile defense system in former Eastern bloc countries, long before the current crisis in Georgia. Obviously, these already announced plans had zero deterrent effect on Russia.
Now, of course, we’ve been talking with the Russians about these plans and looking for ways to keep them in the loop so they don’t see this it as a provocation but if we were to now cut them out of the process, in response to Georgia, how do think the Russians would respond? You think they’d back off with their tails between their legs? Please. Putin isn’t a communist but he is a die hard nationalist. All we would be doing is provoking what the Russians have already promised:
“There is no doubt that the approachment of elements of the U.S. strategic arsenal to the Russian territory could be used to weaken the potential of our deterrent,” the ministry said in a written statement.
“If the real deployment of the U.S. strategic missile defense system begins near our borders, then we will have to respond using not diplomatic but military-technological methods,” it said.
http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe/07/08/missile.defense/index.html
It isn’t then that I think your ideas are “ill-advised” as such, I think they’re a pointless waste of time in terms of what we want to accomplish with regards to Georgia, while creating the potential for any number of consequences we don’t want, such as a renewed arms race. You can mock the UN all you want, but your suggested course of action not only wouldn’t deter the Russians, it would actually provoke them to further confrontation.
So Zython is correct. You seem to prefer action, no matter how random or incoherent, over careful diplomacy and negotiation. Brilliant.
“But I guess these days ‘Hope’ is enough to ensure that Russia won’t actually absorb Georgian territory …”
And JWG, all your proposed “deeds” are based on a similar hope. Hope that escalating our military presence in Eastern Europe will intimidate the Russians. At the same time, they require a great deal of hope the the Russians won’t respond with more aggression and more belligerence thus dragging us into the very military conflict we had hoped to avoid.
What you’re advocating is a kind of military diplomacy that is just as much based on the hope for a successful, intended outcome as anything else.