Anyone watching...
 

....the Russians destroying Georgia?

Too bad we have no more credibility in the world. If we did, we would be
at the forefront of nations demanding that the Russians pull out of
Georgia and head back to their own country.



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
...the Russians destroying Georgia?

Too bad we have no more credibility in the world. If we did, we would be
at the forefront of nations demanding that the Russians pull out of
Georgia and head back to their own country.



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

I'm sure that option is being studied by folks a hell of a lot smarter than
you. We'll probably be hearing our official position soon.

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 8:54*am, "Jim" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

. ..

...the Russians destroying Georgia?

Too bad we have no more credibility in the world. If we did, we would be
at the forefront of nations demanding that the Russians pull out of
Georgia and head back to their own country.

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

I'm sure that option is being studied by folks a hell of a lot smarter than
you. We'll probably be hearing our official position soon.

The situation is far too serious to even try to engage wafa with
common sense over this one... I suggest we leave him to pimping his
empty suit...

Anyone watching...
 

Jim wrote:

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Aug 13, 9:07 am, hk wrote:
wrote:
On Aug 13, 8:54 am, "Jim" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
...the Russians destroying Georgia?
Too bad we have no more credibility in the world. If we did, we
would be
at the forefront of nations demanding that the Russians pull out of
Georgia and head back to their own country.
--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of
party by
voting for Barack Obama!
I'm sure that option is being studied by folks a hell of a lot
smarter than
you. We'll probably be hearing our official position soon.
The situation is far too serious to even try to engage wafa with
common sense over this one... I suggest we leave him to pimping his
empty suit...
The president of Georgia said in the last half hour he was disappointed
by the mushiness (my word) of the initial responses from the Bush
Admin,
because he thought Bush gave the Russians a "green light" to do
whatever
they wanted.

The point is, Bush has blown our credibility in the world of diplomacy,
and you can trace that directly to his invading Iraq under false
pretenses. Sadly, McCain is now blowing the same neocon horn that Bush
suck on.

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of
party by
voting for Barack Obama!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Well, maybe Obama can go "talk" to the Russians.... Your lies and
political shilling will not be productive here, or anywhere..
Thousands of people are dying in a long planned ethnic cleansing by
Moscow, this is not the time for wafa... Hopefully everyone here will
leave you to your salivating...


It's not a matter of "talking" to the Russians, d.f. It's a matter of
calling an immediate head-of-state meeting of our European allies, and
presenting the Russians with a unified list of diplomatic and trade
ultimatums to put pressure on them. Georgia is a close ally of the U.S.,
a reasonable modern democracy, and a country we've been promoting for
membership in NATO.

We're in no position to make military threats to the Russians but they
will respond to the right sorts of pressure.

Perhaps your tired out old geezer McCain will learn how to pronounce the
name of the president of Georgia, eh?





--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

WAFA. Go forth and spread the word. You need to present your ideas
before a much larger audience than rec.boats. Report back here once in a
while to let us know how you are doing. Good luck and god speed.

I am surprised why someone who professes to want to help humanity,
doesn't do something ... anything .... besides posting in rec.boats.

I am out of here for the next two days..... enjoy

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


It's not a matter of "talking" to the Russians, d.f. It's a matter of
calling an immediate head-of-state meeting of our European allies, and
presenting the Russians with a unified list of diplomatic and trade
ultimatums to put pressure on them.


Based on what I am hearing news-wise, that's exactly what is happening.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..

It's not a matter of "talking" to the Russians, d.f. It's a matter of
calling an immediate head-of-state meeting of our European allies, and
presenting the Russians with a unified list of diplomatic and trade
ultimatums to put pressure on them.


Based on what I am hearing news-wise, that's exactly what is happening.

Eisboch



Actually, the French are taking the lead, but it is good that Bush is
sending in relief supplies. I'm not sure what sending Condi Rice over
there will do, since she has about the same credibility on the
international stage as Bush, meaning...zero.

The Russians know that when it comes to dealing with a country that can
fight back, we're paper tigers. But a unified Europe could put the
kibash on the Russkies.



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 12:05*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

. ..



It's not a matter of "talking" to the Russians, d.f. It's a matter of
calling an immediate head-of-state meeting of our European allies, and
presenting the Russians with a unified list of diplomatic and trade
ultimatums to put pressure on them.

Based on what I am hearing news-wise, that's exactly what is happening.

Eisboch

Same old same old. Bush sends troops somewhere, it's wrong. Bush
doesn't send troops somewhere, it's wrong. Just ask the great stateman
Harry.

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:10:12 -0400, hk wrote:

The Russians know that when it comes to dealing with a country that can
fight back, we're paper tigers. But a unified Europe could put the
kibash on the Russkies.

Don't think so. Putin is flexing his muscles, and it plays well in
Russia. With the European heating season coming on, I would suggest the
EU is the paper tiger.

Anyone watching...
 

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:28:07 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 12:10:12 -0400, hk wrote:

The Russians know that when it comes to dealing with a country that can
fight back, we're paper tigers. But a unified Europe could put the
kibash on the Russkies.

Don't think so. Putin is flexing his muscles, and it plays well in
Russia. With the European heating season coming on, I would suggest the
EU is the paper tiger.

A unified Europe will sit there and watch the Russians take country after
country until they get to Great Britain, unless we help. You're absolutely
correct.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.

My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.

Anyone watching...
 

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.

My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.


You might find this interesting...it points out McCain's financial
relationships with neocon lobbyists who represent Georgia...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080813/...LUQ565oSJI2ocA



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


The point is this: despite protestations from neocons and their camp
followers, the United States doesn't have the wherewithal to challenge any
large nuclear power, and we haven't had it for many decades.

Of course we do. But who wants to use it?


Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

The situation in Georgia cannot be compared to Iraq, Afghanistan, or any
other "hot" spots".
It is unique and requires a unique response. Some say it is best to let it
resolve itself.


The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.

At the moment, I agree. That's why we need to be prepared continuously.
It's a big, bad world out there.


--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama ... to replace the Democratic voters switching to
McCain!

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.

My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.

For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play.

--Vic

Anyone watching...
 

Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.
My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.

For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play.

--Vic


McCain, speaking in Michigan a few minutes ago, said in the 21st
Century, nations do not invade other nations. Has he already forgotten
the U.S. invasion of Iraq?



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 4:35*pm, hk wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.
My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. *They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.

Anyone watching...
 

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:35 pm, hk wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:
Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor
can
we claim we're on the high moral road.
Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to
leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.
The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily,
either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.
The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are
doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.
My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay
attention.
For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play. --Vic
McCain, speaking in Michigan a few minutes ago, said in the 21st
Century, nations do not invade other nations. Has he already forgotten
the U.S. invasion of Iraq?



You don't know ****.. Neocons, Bush's fault, nothing but party line
name calling ... and of course making it up as it comes off the DNC
faxes.. give it up. You started the day saying we should be doing
something.. the G7 and UN were talking the first day. Russia, China,
Iran, etc, just say what idiots like you want to hear, and you lick
their balls.. wafa.. Thousands are being ethnically cleansed, it's
Nazi Germany all over again. This invasion was planned for more than a
year, wouldn't doubt if Russian soldiers wore Georgian uniforms to
start the attack. Remember Hitler..


On the painkillers again, huh?

Read the "indirect" quote from McCain again...

...in the 21st Century, nations do not invade other nations..."



You're taking it in the literal sense. I'm not so sure that's the way he
meant it. If I'm right, he most certainly should have expressed it
differently.





He said that.

I'm sure Putin thought, "well, what about Iraq?"

Not that Putin's invasion of Georgia was justified.
Neither was our invasion of Iraq.

BTW, when I said Bush should do something, I was referring to diplomatic
measures, not military measures. There's nothing we can do with the
Russians that involves taking military measures against them. We can only
beat up bitty nations, and not even those sometime.



--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

D.Duck wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
wrote:
On Aug 13, 4:35 pm, hk wrote:
Vic Smith wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:
Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor
can
we claim we're on the high moral road.
Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to
leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.
The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily,
either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.
The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are
doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.
My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay
attention.
For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play. --Vic
McCain, speaking in Michigan a few minutes ago, said in the 21st
Century, nations do not invade other nations. Has he already forgotten
the U.S. invasion of Iraq?


You don't know ****.. Neocons, Bush's fault, nothing but party line
name calling ... and of course making it up as it comes off the DNC
faxes.. give it up. You started the day saying we should be doing
something.. the G7 and UN were talking the first day. Russia, China,
Iran, etc, just say what idiots like you want to hear, and you lick
their balls.. wafa.. Thousands are being ethnically cleansed, it's
Nazi Germany all over again. This invasion was planned for more than a
year, wouldn't doubt if Russian soldiers wore Georgian uniforms to
start the attack. Remember Hitler..

On the painkillers again, huh?

Read the "indirect" quote from McCain again...

...in the 21st Century, nations do not invade other nations..."



You're taking it in the literal sense. I'm not so sure that's the way he
meant it. If I'm right, he most certainly should have expressed it
differently.



Oh...well maybe McCain should have said, "Don't take this seriously, but
in the 21st Century, nations do not invade other nations."

There.

Fixed.






--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith
wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 14:54:05 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:42:14 -0400, hk wrote:

Thanks to Bush, we don't have any diplomatic clout left, either, nor can
we claim we're on the high moral road.

Therefore, there isn't much we can do to "persuade" the Russkis to leave
Georgia and not to invade any of its other former satellites.

The Europeans are not going to take the Russkies on militarily, either,
but, unlike us, they are not in the diplomatic and moral cellar, and
they can do a lot more to force reasonable behavior than we can.

The Russians don't give a damn what we think about what they are doing.
They know we are not in a position to do dick about it.

My point is, this isn't about Georgia, it's about Russia. They are
letting the world know they are back, and *we* had better pay attention.

For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play.

--Vic

That last line was written by George Soros, no?
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Anyone watching...
 

"Vic Smith" wrote in message
...

For Putin it's a "national security" issue.
The internal "Russian" domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's
lame-ass missile defense plans in that part of the world.
Putin doesn't want American missiles right on his border, and I don't
blame him. I don't want Russian missiles in Mexico or Canada.
American missiles in the Czech Republic today, Georgia tomorrow.
Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests about those missiles, and
now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS.
BTW, I heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian
Terroists" and making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq.
Whether you buy that or not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that
card to play.

--Vic

No argument from me on your post or thoughts. I think you are 100%
correct.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.



Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 5:17*pm, "Eisboch" wrote:
"hk" wrote in message

. ..

There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. *We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch

Call Bush names???

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 21:12:03 GMT, John H.
wrote:



That last line was written by George Soros, no?

I said my piece on this, John, right or wrong.
BTW, I asked what ramp on the Potomac those catfishers
launch from, but it might be a while before they answer.
Probably out fishing.

--Vic

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 17:17:47 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
...


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.



Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch


Argue with Eisboch?
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Anyone watching...
 

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.



Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch


(Harry must be waiting for a return email from the DNC on how to answer)

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.



Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch



What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 7:21*pm, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
...

There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. *We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch

What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!


Sorry Harry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Anyone watching...
 

JimH wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:21 pm, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.
What do you suggest we do about that?
Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!


Sorry Harry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here are the names of two large countries capable of fighting back:

Russia
China

Please explain how we could take on either of these nations and have our
nation survive?

Certainly, we are capable of attacking either (the neocon dream)
but...then what?

The Russians have enough nukes to flatten us, and the Chinese are no
strangers to nukedom, either.

Thus, my posit remains: we are only capable of taking on bitty countries
that have little ability to fight back, and even then, our winning is
not a sure thing.




--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Anyone watching...
 

On Aug 13, 7:45*pm, hk wrote:
JimH wrote:
On Aug 13, 7:21 pm, hk wrote:
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
om...
There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking military
measures against them. *We can only beat up bitty nations, and not even
those sometime.
Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.
What do you suggest we do about that?
Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Sorry Harry but you have no idea what you are talking about.

Here are the names of two large countries capable of fighting back:

Russia
China

Please explain how we could take on either of these nations and have our
nation survive?

Certainly, we are capable of attacking either (the neocon dream)
but...then what?

The Russians have enough nukes to flatten us, and the Chinese are no
strangers to nukedom, either.

Thus, my posit remains: we are only capable of taking on bitty countries
that have little ability to fight back, and even then, our winning is
not a sure thing.

--
Join the growing number of Republicans putting country ahead of party by
voting for Barack Obama!

Sorry Harry but as I said previously.......you have no idea what you
are talking about.

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.


Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?



They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch





As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.

Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?


They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch




As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world.
Russia wouldn't have invaded.


Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch


We *are* a paper tiger as far as any nation capable of fighting back in
a big way. We aren't going to engage either Russia or China. Who are we
going to go to war with, Venezuela?

Oh...I don't buy the Reagan myths. Decades of the Soviets blowing
resources on the military (that began long before Reagan got into the
white house, a generational shift in who controlled the country, the
acts of Yeltsin, and many other factors were the cause of the collapse
of the old Soviet Union.

I'm not familiar with Nunn's proposals, so I cannot comment specifically
on them. I am, however, in favor of greatly reducing the size of the
U.S. military. We need to concentrate on developing relationships with
other nations that lead to the deployment of large multi-national
peacekeeping forces when necessary, and get out of the neocon-driven
warmongering business.

George W. Bush has done this country great harm. It will take us years,
if not decades, to recover. We need smarter political leaders, not more
militarily aggressive little tyrants.




--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"hk" wrote in message
e.com...
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..
Eisboch wrote:
"hk" wrote in message
. ..


There's nothing we can do with the Russians that involves taking
military measures against them. We can only beat up bitty nations,
and not even those sometime.


Let's assume for a moment that you are correct.

What do you suggest we do about that?

Eisboch
What, that we can only take on bitty nations, or what can be done with
big nations capable of fighting back ?



They way you originally stated your position (above), the two issues are
linked. If you are correct, what, if anything, would you do about it?

Eisboch





As I previously stated, for the situation currently at hand, urge our
European allies to join with us in condemning the Russian invaders, impose
diplomatic and commercial barriers, and also speed up the acceptance of
the former Soviet states that are now true democracies into NATO. Naked
militarism is no longer the answer.


All of that is currently being done. Now, consider this ....
What if Georgia was already accepted as a member of NATO and the Russians
did what they are doing.
What then? As a NATO ally, wouldn't we, along with other NATO members, be
obligated to respond militarily if required?

Meanwhile, Sam Nunn (D - the "other" Georgia) is advocating a substantial
reduction in American troops deployed overseas and wants to significantly
cut back the Navy. He claims that with the Soviet Union no longer being a
threat, we don't need to maintain the military strength recommended by the
current administration ..... which, by the way, has proposed cutbacks as
well, but not to the level Nunn advocates. Nunn also mumbles about the US
not maintaining a leadership role in NATO.

Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of Jimmy
Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a paper tiger,
it was during his administration. Reagan came along, reversed all Carter's
cutbacks and set in motion the events that ultimately led to the USSR's
collapse. Isn't it ironic that the reasons Sam Nunn gives as justification
to significantly cut back the military can be credited to Reagan's buildup
of the same?

Sam Nunn. On Obama's short list.

Eisboch

Without the US, Nato is a not even a paper tiger. The forces in the
European countries are almost non-existent. As do most liberals, they
believe that the Russians, Chinese, Iranians, etc., are inherently good at
heart and won't harm anyone. In the case of Georgia, my good friend in
Holland believes they brought it on themselves, and we should do nothing.
When I ask him about the Ukraine, he thinks Russia will do nothing there.

We'll see.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm

Anyone watching...
 

wrote:
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and
so encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have
to be cut.



--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 15:21:36 -0500, Vic Smith wrote:


For Putin it's a "national security" issue. The internal "Russian"
domestic issues were exacerbated by Bush's lame-ass missile defense
plans in that part of the world. Putin doesn't want American missiles
right on his border, and I don't blame him. I don't want Russian
missiles in Mexico or Canada. American missiles in the Czech Republic
today, Georgia tomorrow. Bush refused to listen to Putin's protests
about those missiles, and now is getting spanked.
Simple diplomacy and strategic vision could have avoided this BS. BTW, I
heard Putin talking the other day about the "Georgian Terroists" and
making equivalencies with our invasion of Iraq. Whether you buy that or
not, it was George Bush who gave Putin that card to play.

I wouldn't disagree that it could have been handled better by Bush.
Squeezing Russia isn't smart, but I don't see this as a reaction to
Bush's mishandling of the situation. I see this as Putin making a
statement. Russia was recently a world player, and Putin's statement is
that it is once again a world player that has to be listened to. We take
Putin, and Russia, for granted at our peril.

If you want to talk mishandling, Saakashvili is right at the top of the
list.

Anyone watching...
 

wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.

Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
..
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..


If Georgia and some of the other former Sov satellites were already in
NATO, and if Bush hadn't shot our diplomatic wad around the world. Russia
wouldn't have invaded.



Come on Harry. That is nothing but a grand assumption.

Here's the question, put more simply.

If a NATO member is attacked and invaded by Russia (or any other non-NATO
adversary), does the United States have an obligation to respond with
military action, if required?

Eisboch

Anyone watching...
 

Eisboch wrote:
wrote in message
t...
On Wed, 13 Aug 2008 23:13:45 -0400, Eisboch wrote:


Here we go again with history repeating itself. This is shades of
Jimmy Carter all over again. If the USA ever became close to being a
paper tiger, it was during his administration. Reagan came along,
reversed all Carter's cutbacks and set in motion the events that
ultimately led to the USSR's collapse.
Those were Ford's cuts, and to be fair, we were coming out of a war. One
should expect the defense budget to be cut. Carter increased, as % GDP,
the defense budget. Reagan, of course, increased it significantly more.


http://colorado.mediamatters.org/sta...em/incidental/
fiscalchart.htm


Seems to me that I recall plans to reduce the Navy by almost half by Carter
which led to serious concerns about our ability to control the seas by
members of Congress on both sides
.
Reagan re-instituted a 600 ship (minimum) Navy.

Not Google info .... this is from memory.

Eisboch



Indeed, a colossal waste of taxpayer money...a 600-ship Navy. Boys and
their toys.

--
"In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations."
John McCain, news conference, 13 August 2008, forgetting somehow that
the United States invaded and occupied Iraq in 2003. Another McCain
senior moment?

Anyone watching...
 

"hk" wrote in message
. ..




One of the Reagan Admin's goals was to so overspend on the military and so
encumber the country with debt, necessary social programs would have to be
cut.



That was a *goal*?

Where do you come up with this stuff?

Eisboch