1. I was calling the situation of two super nations trying to have another cold war stupid.
I see.
But it's like when 2 fish get too big for the same pond.
2.Many people have said it even before this incident. Remember when Bush wanted to set up missiles in Europe right next to Russia, but Putin said no? Well guess what Bush is going ahead with the plan anyways. In response Putin said that they may have to take nuclear action against any country who supports this US goal. From there it's been all down hill and anyone who has examined the situation knows that there is conflict between the two nations. This new situation only heightens that conflict, therefore McCain states the obvious.
Well, yeah, Putin said no, but so did Poland's parliment, IIRC.
Our second choice was the Czech Republic... but I don't know if they officially said "yes" yet. It's kind of stupid, really, because the defense system is in it's infancy, unable to strike a target that even makes an attempt to evade - but in the end, Russia has enough nukes to simply
overload the system's ability to compensate.
But you're right - US foreign policy is just as to blame here as Russian over-exaggeration.
3. Obama's words -
"The relationship between Russia and the West is long and complicated. There have been many turning points, for good and ill. This is another turning point. Let me be clear: we seek a future of cooperative engagement with the Russian government, and friendship with the Russian people. We want Russia to play its rightful role as a great nation - but with that role comes the responsibility to act as a force for progress in this new century, not regression to the conflicts of the past. That is why the United States and the international community must speak out strongly against this aggression, and for peace and security."
4. Obama's full opinion on the sitution found right here as JPN tried to post -
htp://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/08/obama_no_possible_justificatio.php
I usually like what he has to say on issues, especially what he says about Iran...
... but I'm deeply
underwhelmed by his wishy-washy responce.
"For many months, I have warned that there needs to be active international engagement to peacefully address the disputes over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, including a high-level and neutral international mediator, and a genuine international peacekeeping force - not simply Russian troops."This alone shows me he's not as well versed with the conflict as he should be. This isn't Russian expansionism. The chess game that Russia is playing right now makes "expansionism" look like tic-tac-toe by comparison.
"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."As long as Russia has a vote in the UNSC, this is pointless to even mention. This is why the US has been able to escape criticism of its actions in Iraq. The best thing we can hope for Russia to agree to is humanitarian aid...
Everything he says later on fails to address a very important point: that Georgia invaded S Ossetia to keep it from breaking away from Georgia. Russia simply jumped in cause it saw an oppurtunity to hurt western intrests.
Just as much blame rests with Georgia as it does with Russia... and Obama
never makes that clear.
Like I said, I usuallly like his opinions on foreign policy because the US is too heavy handed when dealing with "threats" abroad (Vietnam, Korea, Cuba, the Balkans, Iraq, etc.) and a softer, less hawkish hand is required.
But this is a
very different type of conflict and "international peace" won't work because the actions of individual nations for the sake of "national security" trump it every time.
Since Obama shows an apparent inablility to understand the actual
issue he can't possibly be expected to think of a propper
solution.
Troops to the Ukraine will send a clear message. It's just a shame Bush had to go and overextend our military at a time when national interests are actually at stake
...
McCain's statements are characteristic of McCain, and reveals what his foreign policy would be like: belligerent, hawkish, prone to violence. He's pulling out all the stops, trying to compare this to 1938/9. It's like there's nothing he'd enjoy more than getting into a war with Russia.
McCain's "hawkish" approach to the problem is actually rather appropriate. We're not dealing with a weak, powerless adversary anymore. This is the big leagues.
Like I said, I'm convinced the Cold War never actually ended. This crisis just goes to show that the ruling party or type of government for any particular country is irrelevant - only universal national interests define foreign policy.
The man is scary. He's belligerent. He wants to be Commander in Chief so bad that it visibly shows. His judgment on foreign policy is so bad that the people he is joined at the hip with couldn't even hang with the Bush admin. He was all for the Iraq war. He was all for attacking Iran. He's a loose cannon.
You're right. McCain is ALL wrong about Iran, Iraq and the entire Middle East.
But he's right about Russia.
There is a powerful and important distinction between Russia and every other nation (since WWII) that we've been in conflict with. It's that Russia is the closest in military resources to actually put up a decent fight - not to mention their nuclear arsenal.
We. Can. Not. Treat. Russia. Like. We. Should. Everyone. Else.
The fact that the Russians are now apparently pulling back demonstrates that calm, dispassionate diplomacy is often the best choice.
It demonstrates they've achieved a piece of their objective, which is to send a message.
If border countries start to reconsider their relationship with the West, we're screwed. Plus, they've shown their proximity to western energy intrests, which at this time of US oil dependence (and Russia's oil
INdependence), is worthy of concern.
