I'm not getting that from the media, but okay, how did Georgia provoke Russia? What did they do? The Russians have accused them of ethnic cleansing in the South Ossetia region. That's part of their own country. So there was no provoking of Russia. They've offered no proof of this. If Russia is claiming to invade to defend the Ossetians, why did they need to invade the country through Abkhazia, taking Poti and Senaki? Why not stop at the South Ossetia border? Why take Gori? Why bomb Tblisi airport? Why bomb at all? They could have entered South Ossetia to restore peace and only fired when fired upon. They're laying waste to the country. If a reaction was called for, Russia's reaction is overkill.

And that's if Russia is telling the truth. I know you trust Russia more than the US government, but they don't have a long history of telling the truth. I just listened to an interview with a Russia Today reporter on NPR. They aren't allowing anyone to report anything other than the army's party line back to Russia. If Russia was justified, why stifle the press?

Please provide what actions US and Israeli interests pushed the Georgians into doing whatever it is you think they did. Why would we want them to kill their own people? Why isn't US rhetoric helping? What rhetoric would help? Surrender and capitulation, I suppose.

I make no assumptions -- except perhaps never to believe the "news" as its printed in the NYT or broadcast on Fox, CNN and CBS et al .

Your immediate assumption is that the left wing media is lying? I'm sure you think Fox is lying but The New York Times? This idea stuns me. It's one thing to say that you take what the media says, investigate beyond it, and then make a judgement with all the facts. You've decided that if The Times prints it then it's not true. No need to find out more.

http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_7403

Bob Byrd. Interesting article.

“The bipartisan leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives stands united in condemning — in the strongest possible terms — the recent Russian invasion of the sovereign state of Georgia," the statement read.

The statement was signed by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, House Republican Leader John A. Boehner, and House Republican Whip Roy Blunt.

"The United States is committed to Georgia’s absolute sovereignty, and we reject the Russian Foreign Minister’s reported assertion that democratically-elected President Mikheil Saakashvili ‘must go.’"

While Russian President Dmitri Medvedev ordered a halt to military action in Georgia on Tuesday, U.S. officials were still trying to confirm a ceasefire and determine the proper international response to the invasion.

For her part, Pelosi issued a harsh critique of Russia's actions.

“Russian military action in Georgia should be recognized for what it is — an effort to intimidate Georgia’s freely elected government and the governments of other democratic states on Russia’s borders, as well,” said Pelosi. “It must be made clear to Russian leaders that this kind of conduct is unacceptable.”

Pelosi and Boehner agreeing and issuing a joint statement. I think the Phillies have won a World Series since the last time that happened.

jerseyhoya wrote:http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_7403

Bob Byrd. Interesting article.

And suddenly McCain doesn't seem so old.

TheDude24 wrote:

jerseyhoya wrote:http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_7403

Bob Byrd. Interesting article.

And suddenly McCain doesn't seem so old.

I like that Byrd's Chief of Staff laughed when Byrd said he could be president right now.

Laexile wrote:I'm not getting that from the media, but okay, how did Georgia provoke Russia? What did they do? The Russians have accused them of ethnic cleansing in the South Ossetia region. That's part of their own country. So there was no provoking of Russia. They've offered no proof of this. If Russia is claiming to invade to defend the Ossetians, why did they need to invade the country through Abkhazia, taking Poti and Senaki? Why not stop at the South Ossetia border? Why take Gori? Why bomb Tblisi airport? Why bomb at all? They could have entered South Ossetia to restore peace and only fired when fired upon. They're laying waste to the country. If a reaction was called for, Russia's reaction is overkill.

And that's if Russia is telling the truth. I know you trust Russia more than the US government, but they don't have a long history of telling the truth. I just listened to an interview with a Russia Today reporter on NPR. They aren't allowing anyone to report anything other than the army's party line back to Russia. If Russia was justified, why stifle the press?

Please provide what actions US and Israeli interests pushed the Georgians into doing whatever it is you think they did. Why would we want them to kill their own people? Why isn't US rhetoric helping? What rhetoric would help? Surrender and capitulation, I suppose.

I make no assumptions -- except perhaps never to believe the "news" as its printed in the NYT or broadcast on Fox, CNN and CBS et al .

Your immediate assumption is that the left wing media is lying? I'm sure you think Fox is lying but The New York Times? This idea stuns me. It's one thing to say that you take what the media says, investigate beyond it, and then make a judgement with all the facts. You've decided that if The Times prints it then it's not true. No need to find out more.

I don't know enough about the long term historical issues, adn the S Ossetia sitch since 91, and I don't know who provoked who, I suspect there is blame to go around. Georgia (and McCain has pushed this for a while) has been lobbying to join NATO. I can't imagine Russia would be thrilled to have Nato in a former Soviet region, Turkey is bad enough. All I'm suggesting is that there are many layers to this stuff and we are told what they want us to believe. I don't trust Putin or the Russian machine either, so don't act like I do. But Bush's rhetoric is telgraphed as well and its a fact that Georgia was being armed and trained by Israel? Why?

As for NYT. There used to be a journal I subscribed to, called LOOT (lies of our times) the entire publication documented lies and mistruths printed in the NY Times. I'll take the Times over Fox, but I don't get my primary news from those nor PBS --

Turkey is a long-time member of NATO--long before the fall of the Berlin wall.

FTN wrote:US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation

I mean hey this didn't work out too well the first two times around, but third time's the charm right?

Bob Loblaw wrote:

"Looks right to me"
- GWB

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

Bob Loblaw wrote:

"Looks right to me"
- GWB

the epitaph of the past 8 years.

mpmcgraw wrote:

FTN wrote:US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation

I mean hey this didn't work out too well the first two times around, but third time's the charm right?

You have no idea what you're talking about. Don't pretend to know. Because you don't know. You don't.

Ok, so elaborate, Flop. Because I gotta tell you, not only do I tend to think it's a bad idea to become isolationist, I'm not sure it's realistic in any real way nowadays. I suppose if we were ruled by a military junta...

jeff2sf wrote:Ok, so elaborate, Flop. Because I gotta tell you, not only do I tend to think it's a bad idea to become isolationist, I'm not sure it's realistic in any real way nowadays. I suppose if we were ruled by a military junta...

Pure isolationism isn't realistic in the modern world. I'm not advocating pure isolationism. A "move toward" is far from advocating pure isolationism. But our current foreign policy is beyond fucked up, and if things are going to get better, major changes should be made. They won't be, so it doesn't really matter.

mpmcgraw's typical ill-informed statements hinted at isolationism being the cause of WWI and WWII, which of course couldn't be further from the truth. We we're an isolationist nation then, or anything close to it.

FTN wrote:US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation

Just curious. Do you mean actual isolationism, which is both non-interventionism and protectionism (economic nationalism, closed borders, etc.)?

Woody wrote:

wow, My Dad couldnt even wait for that...

Phan In Phlorida wrote:

FTN wrote:US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation
US please move towards becoming an isolationist nation

Just curious. Do you mean actual isolationism, which is both non-interventionism and protectionism (economic nationalism)?

strategic independence.

Economically we're never going to become isolationist, which I fully understand.

The chairman of the Arkansas Democratic Party was hospitalized in critical condition Wednesday after an incident at the party headquarters, a party executive said. A television station reported that three shots were fired and that a man escaped the area in a blue truck.

A suspect has been shot and apprehended, police said.

I hope Paul pulls through.

In a story which should be labeled "Duh", Jim Leach and Lincoln Chafee have endorsed Barack Obama. Neither is currently in Congress. Leach has been on the outs with the GOP since he voted against the Iraq War. Chafee was a questionable Republican. He was appointed to the job when his father died and won reelection right after. To say that these guys are representative of Republicans for Obama is equivalent to saying that Joe Lieberman is representative of Democrats. Lieberman is about to be stripped of his committee seniority.

An endorsement from Chuck Hagel would mean something. While Hagel is retiring and seems to agree with Obama on foreign policy, Hagel's stance on fiscal policy is very different than Obama's. Hagel endorsing Obama on economic issues would be a blow.

A major wildcard that hasn't received any mention is Ron Paul. Paul hasn't endorsed anyone. He could sell his supporters on most anyone. I think his supporters are less likely to vote for McCain than social conservatives.

Bob Barr would seem like a natural choice. He's not close to Obama on foreign policy, but is closer to him than McCain. He has definite differences with McCain on fiscal policy, but is closer to him than Obama.