No mention of the Georgian President's response directed at McCain?

"“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.”

Saakashvili said action is more important than rhetoric in the face of “brutal” and “deliberate” Russian violence. He urged the United States to take the lead in installing an international peacekeeping force.

I don't think that this (or any other campaign question at this point, really) is an objective question...I have a feeling that most Obama supporters are going to feel his response is more appropriate, and the same for McCain supporters--it just goes down to whose foreign policy style one favors.

I don't think that's a BAD thing, I'm just saying I don't think this is necessarily a question that's going to get a real "one is better than the other" answer.

For the record, I think Obama's response is more appropriate. Naturally.

Good point, Jude. I think you are correct.

McCain said the other day that "in the 21st Century, nations don't invade other nations". Except if you are Iraq, of course.

Not surprisingly, I do favor Obama's stance on the matter. I think getting too aggressive too soon only enflames an already tense situation. I also think that speaking out the way McCain did is better suited to a President...not a nominee. If Obama had done the same thing there would be cries of "arrogance".

I think an organized approach is best, and when the White House and a nominee are both speaking to other countries, it increases confusion. I also think that whatever actions the US takes, it should be in unity with other allies. We should not have to bear the responsibility of resolving this situation on our own. It is a global threat.

"Except if you are Iraq, of course."

TEWTALLY!

I agree with the rest of what you just said 100% as well. Nicely put.

if mccain is president we will go into yet another war. god help us all. seriously.

mccain has always had a hard lined stance againist russia. during a speech in california he called for the us to remove russia from the g8 and for us to condemn them for their human rights abuses. but in the same breath he called for us to embrace china. the georgia conflict gives him the perfect chance to unveil his hypocrisy.

I remember his call to take Russia out of the G8. IMO, I think it goes against the saying, "Keep your friends close, keep your enemies closer." We have far more bargining power when we aren't challenging them to a c*** waving contest.

(Sorry, had to be a little crass! I couldnt think of another name for that type of behavior!)

I agree with what you said, Jude and your points too Jillness. Unsurprisingly, I too think Obama's approach is better.

Would it be better if we sat back, remained silent, and watched the old Russia "reclaim" the territories that it lost to independance when it fell in the mid 90's?

This conflict in Georgia exemplifies the differences between McCain, and Obama, and IMO McCain has a better grasp of what's really going on. The Russian government isn't going to stop what they are doing just because the US says so. We definitely need to send troops to reinforce the Georgian army, and remind Russia that an attack on our allies is an attack on us.

This helps someone who has experience in warfare, and that would be McCain.

Dave I completely agree. John McCain knows a lot more about Georgia than Obama does. Besides, doesn't Obama place part of the blame on Georgia itself? Nice.

We need to be supporting and helping small democracies flourish. If we wait for the UN to resolve this thing we may as well just hand Georgia back to Russia right now.

Maybe I'm missing how being stern with another country = war mongering. I don't recall McCain ever saying "hey lets start a war with russia!"

Just because someone doesn't roll over and take it lying down doesn't mean they are bullying either. It's not one or the other.

Waiting for the UN to decide anything is like asking a room fool of spoiled children to think about someone else. Ain't gonna happen.

Awesome analogy Dave. Golf claps for you!

As much as I'd like to see "small democracies flourish", it is not our place.

"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations -- entangling alliances with none" -Thomas Jefferson.

That may have worked in Thomas Jefferson's time, but we are no longer a self-sufficient nation. Global isolationism is what got us into trouble during WWII.

We never have been a self-sufficient nation. When did we NOT import goods?

As for "isolationism", it's far more isolating to arrogantly assume the right and the responsibility to enforce every border in the world and get involved in the conflicts of other nations. We have no right or authority to dictate the actions of another sovereign country. I don't see how "peace, commerce, and honest friendship" is isolating us from the world.

For democracy to flurrish...that means that the disputed areas would go to Russia. They are a part of Georgia, but don't want to be because of extreme nationalism that they see is an afront to their way of life. The 2 disputed territories are considered "ethnic" and they have their own language, where as Georgia wants to make their language the one that rules the whole country, including these people in the disputed territories.

And Cabaker, Georgia made the military move first. Russia did NOT act first. Their reaction was way out of line, but they did not start this conflict.

Wow, I meant "flourish". Woops!

"doesn't Obama place part of the blame on Georgia itself"

I think it's less about placing blame and more about expecting both countries to bring some compromise to the table. I'm actually very "blame Russia," but Jill said it best in the post above about Georgia's role in the conflict.

It's easy to see big, bad Russia being a bully (which is absolutely true; they are way out of line and rather frightening), but Georgia needs to take responsibility for making the initial move. If nothing else, it will show that they as a nation are willing to take responsibility and look for an at least semi-diplomatic solution to conflict.

Oh, and that is a delicious new avvie, cab!

Huh, it surprises me but I agree with Michelin on this one. It is not our job to enforce democracy in other nations.

"Georgia needs to take responsibility for making the initial move. If nothing else, it will show that they as a nation are willing to take responsibility and look for an at least semi-diplomatic solution to conflict."

Well said.

Haha, Kastarte, why is that so surprising?

I know Jude! Cabaker's avatar is really making me want one of those super chocolaty cupcakes from the bakery down the street. I wonder if it is still open...

Look at that perfect frosting swirl!

What did Georgia do to provoke this armed conflict? I really don't know.

Only because I think our opinions are usually at odds with each other's. I was pleasantly surprised to find that we do agree on something. Are we reaching across the aisle?

No kastarte, you are finally seeing the light.

There had been tensions between Georgia and Russia for some time, with Russia working to intensify diplomatic relations with the Georgian breakaway provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Months of saber rattling ensued. Then, on August 7, "Georgian troops launch a surprise attack on Tskhinvali, capital of South Ossetia, 'to restore constitutional order.'" Fighting began in earnest the next day, when Russia attacked.

Russia was definitely out of line in the scale of its reaction, but Georgia is the country that attacked its own province and people to prevent secession.

It all seems very complicated to me, which is another reason I believe that asking both sides to take responsibility and seek a diplomatic solution is doubly important. Georgia's hands certainly aren't spanky clean here.

I wouldn't say I'm reaching across the aisle. I don't really identify with Republicans today. They're mostly neo-cons. I'd consider myself a libertarian/constitutionalist/traditional conservative

I like your summary of your philosophy, Michelin. And your distaste for neocons

Don't get too excited, Jude, I dislike liberals just as much

Bipartisanship takes a blow straight to the gut...

I should clarify... I don't necessarily dislike liberal people (nearly all of my friends consider themselves liberal), I just dislike the philosophy.

I figured.

I feel the same way about 90% of conservative philosophy, so we're even

I'm glad to see my cupcakes can appeal to both sides!

Yay cupcakes!

Not to be contrary, but I'm back on the diet as of yesterday, so I'm giving your cupcake the evil eye...

Re: "He urged the United States to take the lead in installing an international peacekeeping force."

This is the kind of thing I was thinking of the other day when I said I'd be fine if we let some other countries step up. Is Italy being urged to send troops and take the lead to resolve the conflict?

I think I need to read a book about the history of this region before understanding what the heck happened.

As for which candidate it helps, I don't know. There was a lot of "tough talk" in the Bush administration and I truly don't think it was helpful. It's hard to back a claim like that up though.

I guess I'm just tired of the U.S. making itself responsible for every conflict all over the world. Do we even have the strength to back up our talk given how much of our resources are tied up in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Jude, thank you so much for your details about what has happened. I have been getting bits and pieces here and there, but so many sources failed to mention that Russia was retaliating for Georgian military action, and those that did were not very descriptive.

I am wondering why this very important information isn't being mentioned more frequently in the news?

But was Georgia trying to restore constitutional order to its own province? Part of its country?
Does that make a difference?

I think Jill, because it conflicts with the picture of Georgia as a wronged democracy that has to be protected from the Russians.
It's much easier to have good guys and bad.

stephley said it best, I think.

It is just so easy to think of Russia, especially under Putin's rule, as the villain, that it is easy to overlook that others may have a hand in problems in the region.

Well after reading the linked article and reviewing other articles about the situation surrounding South Ossetia, North Ossetia, Russia and Georgia and the circumstances that bind them and divide them, IMO Sen. McCain’s so called experience surrendered to image rather than substance.

Rather than fire off a thunder clap of aggressive language to sooth the tit of campaign image and score the first brownie points. Sen. McCain should have been more concerned with a complete assessment of the situation. His one sided irresponsible comments did nothing to help, "Today we are all Georgians". What the hell is that? You don't say something like that if you can't back it up. The fact of the matter is we can't and we won't so all he did by saying that is ad insult to injury with respect to the Georgians and made himself look like the very thing his campaign accuses Sen. Obama of being, big on rhetoric and empty on substance. His assertion to us that because Georgia is a democracy and friend and Russia is not and has given us problems there for Russia is completely to blame is an intellectually impotent assessment of what's going on. He has either ignored or failed to recognize the circumstances surrounding the four governments involved in this turmoil.

Sen. Obama's measured yet stern response was an appropriate response to the situation and it took into consideration the circumstances at work. His response was not one sided. He recognized the wrongs of all parties’ friend or foe and called on all wrong doers to clean up their act. I would much rather have a commander & chief that can call it like it is rather than one who will unnecessarily inflame an already volatile situation with aggressive language.

"I would much rather have a commander & chief that can call it like it is rather than one who will unnecessarily inflame an already volatile situation with aggressive language."

I agree, Hypno.

I was thinking last night about defending democracies. Zimbabwe came to mind, and how the government forced people to vote a certain way, raped, killed, imprisoned members of the opposition team. While the US spoke out against it, ultimately we can't step in to every conflict.

"But was Georgia trying to restore constitutional order to its own province?"

I was under the impression that they were trying to reclaim an area that wanted to secede.

I am curious about the situation before Georgia acted militarily. By saying that they were "restoring constitutional order"...does that mean there was mass chaos before? Was there looting and rioting? Or did armed forces just show up?

WAR in Georgia is not good. Of course, when Sherman marched into Atlanta and burned the place down . . . OH, you mean the 'other' Georgia?

John McCain knows war and knows what goes on in people's heads. Barry Soetoro-Obama knows nothing about war or even life. Barry Soetoro-Obama is so young he hasn't had to deal with the complexities that life can toss his way. He has no foundation from dealing with past incidences to create strength of character. John McCain has resolve. Barry Soetoro-Obama has dissolve.

Who do YOU want in the White House? Someone who will stand firm or someone who will melt under pressure? The choice is yours. And the USofA will either continue to be a force for good or will be destroyed by your choice.

Who do YOU want in the White House?

I want YOU Auntie Coosa.

I would be a nickel that much of the difference in opinion on this matter is age-based.

As one of those who can remember the Cold War, this concerns me.
The younger folks don't remember how deceptive and strategic the Soviets / Russians can be.

Look at a decent map of the region, preferably including topography. Abkhazia includes a large portion of Georgia's border with the Black Sea. There's a natural barrier, a mountain range, between Russia and South Ossetia. Also, South Ossetia lies directly in the middle of Georgia. It's almost like Canada invading and claiming the entire northern Midwest: Wisconsin, Michigan, Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky. (That would also carve out a large portion of the center of the country, including commercially important waterways.)

One reason it seems many people don't want to get involved is that they consider it entirely an internal matter--someone else's business, not ours. (Remember, we *do* have a treaty with Georgia. No one seems to remember that. (As an aside, this is the attitude that led to World War II getting out of hand instead of being addressed early.)

We need to recognize that the major pipelines carrying oil and gas to western Europe run through Georgia. Russia has had this prize in its sights for some time, now. No one seems to be addressing this major concern. I suspect this is an even more important motivation for Russia than the territorial issues.

From the Christian Science Monitor:
Russia's invasion of Georgian territory last week, in addition to reasserting Moscow's military strength, has complicated Europe's effort to diversify its oil and gas supplies away from the growing dominance of Kremlin-controlled energy giant Gazprom.

In the post-Soviet era, and particularly since 9/11, Central Asia has become a central focus for Western countries looking for more secure energy sources.
www.csmonitor.com/2008/0815/p01s03-woeu.html

We all need to examine these situations more thoroughly.
The only effect Obama's "nice talk" will have on a hard-core, old-school soviet like Putin is to reaffirm how gutless we really are, and encourage him to plow forward with abandon.

Hypno - you hit the nail on the head.

I agree with the post that said the USA has been tough talking for years, and it hasn't done any good. I feel like Bush and McCain are definitely the same in this regard...they like to puff up their chest and say "You'd better behave, OR ELSE!". But that isn't a threat anymore. Our country is broke, our military is entangled in an unneccessary war, and our enemies are stronger than ever. And all this tough talk means that they see things as very black and white, good guys vs. bad guys, and in actuality politics and foreign affairs are much more subtle than that.