Can't believe these fucks. And the world stands by and does nothing.

Who started the latest round of attacks?

Georgia's our ally.
Georgia's overplayed its hand when it killed Russians.
Russia reacted with devastating force.

I'm curious about the rumors of U.S. mercenaries being part of the initial attack by Georgia.

I should have known that anything bad in this world and y'all will come up with some way to point back to the US of A. :(

I was dismayed at the lack of mention of Georgia, like they're faultless in all of this. But apart from the mercenary element, I'm not pointing at the U.S. as a bad actor in all this. Really, this fucks the U.S. because Georgia was/is our ally, but did something fairly fuckheaded and destabilizing. We get egg on our face no matter what we do/don't do. <groan>

I didn't see much credible evidence that we had any part in it. I guess I'll have to go read some more.

Also its funny how Israel catches shit when they get tired of getting hammered and react with force, but not the same outcries when its Russia?

Politicians in South Ossetia are reporting that bit about mercenaries, FWIW:

http://www.russiatoday.com/news/news/28765

Not sure what to make of it just yet, but it'd complicate matters further for us if it turned out to be true.

Can't believe these fucks. And the world stands by and does nothing.
we're busy thanks to your retarded uncle.

Russia is a bunch of thugs, gangsters and ex-spooks. Nuclear armed and flush with oil billions. The world treads carefully.

So they are basically america? :yingyang:

On a certain level, yes. The "world" isn't going to stop Russia from doing what it wants in Georgia any more than it could stop America from going into Iraq. Being rich and well-armed has its benefits.

Doubtless there were anti-Tahoe's all over the globe saying the same thing when America went into Iraq. "Can't believe these fucks. And the world stands by and does nothing."

From what I've read/heard Georgia started this whole thing.

Comparing this conflict to Iraq is so laughable, but I wouldn't expect anything different from CNV.

Well, with our actions/motivations in Iraq, we have set precedent for the world that if you want regime change, it's fair game.

Who are we to tell Russia that the genocide perpetuated by Georgia (on Russia's doorstep) is any less important than the genocide perpetuated by Saddam?

Oh, wait, Georgia has provided the 3rd most troops to support our efforts in Iraq (over 2,000 troops). Well, Putin is the bad guy, then. The neocon spin machine is on full blast for this one.

What happened to Bush looking into Putin's soul and knowing that he was a good guy?

I suppose that I'll have to re-adjust my worldview. It used to be that most of the wars and casualties were caused by religion, but in today's world, it's all about the oil, baby.

Breaking...

Russia's Prez Medvedev halts war atrocities in Georgia. Not sure how he got this past Putin.

My guess is that their strategy going into this was to prove a point.

Think they got their attention?

Comparing this conflict to Iraq is so laughable, but I wouldn't expect anything different from CNV.
Yea because we never barged our way into Iraq with a shitty excuse we fabricated and told the rest of the world including russia to fuck off to their suggestions of smarter diplomacy. No way could that be a can of worms that's led to Russia flexing it's muscle at it's own leisure w/o diplomacy first.

I suppose that I'll have to re-adjust my worldview. It used to be that most of the wars and casualties were caused by religion, but in today's world, it's all about the oil, baby.
That's how Tahoe rolls.

I'm sure they did get their attention but going back to one of my points where is the outrage for using excessive force that the world had for Israel when they returned fire?

Yea because we never barged our way into Iraq with a shitty excuse we fabricated and told the rest of the world including russia to fuck off to smarter diplomacy. .

You are right we didn't barge our way into Iraq with a shitty excuse we fabricated and told the rest of the world to fuck off to smarter diplomacy.

You are coming around.

You are right we didn't barge our way into Iraq with a shitty excuse we fabricated and told the rest of the world to fuck off to smarter diplomacy.

You are coming around.
Yea and you possibly have lost all ability to think for yourself if you believe that. All I stated is fact. Iraq was the most classic case of military strong arming against UN suggestions. And I'm sure your take goes well for Stop Loss victims and people getting murdered out there over it.

I know it sucks for you to drink your own piss on this. But Russia is strong arming first because we did when even they said we shouldn't.

Its hard to figure out where to start with some peeps, so I won't.

Good, go watch Foxnews for answers then hopefully they'll tell you to chop your toes off to prove your idiotic loyalty. :)

FoxNews the Numbe One Cable News Network. They report, I decide.

Which is great for them since you needed to watch them to make a decision. Says alot. They make everyone a Tahoe if they could.

At least they give both sides. Why do you think they beat CNN, MSNBC combined COMBINED? Cuz the other Networks are so biased, they won't even report both sides.

At least they give both sides.
Thats an ignorant statement completely too ignorant to ever take you seriously on this ever again.

^^Agreed.

Didn't we straighten this "why Fox News is #1" thing out here before?

I haven't really read much into this thread, but did you guys hear that Russia and Georgia are attacking each other??? Do you think this will affect the Dawgs #1 ranking?

Didn't we straighten this "why Fox News is #1" thing out here before?
Yeah. Maybe Tahoe can catch American Idol and High School Musical in between Fox News shows because we all know popularity is what counts.

Clearly The Closer is the best show all time because it "is the most watched all time"

Its amazing that no matter what the topic, it comes down to either FoxNews or Bush.

People watch cuz they want both sides. Juan Williams, Mara Liason, Alan whatever his name is all do a good job bringing both sides.

So the last report on the Russian atrocities are that Russia kept baiting the Georgians into this. They said there is no way that Russia would have that many tanks, troops and air support that quickly.

And the world stands by and does nothing.

The other spin is that Russia warned them to stop the genocide and other military aggression against these two republics and when they didn't, they prepared their troops for action.

Is the "Russian atrocities" phrase trademarked by the neocons or something, like a brand?

Atrocities is a lil line I like to throw in there to get everyones attention. Too strong, I'm guessing.

Well, it certainly sounds like there are two sides to this story and who knows if we'll ever get to the bottom of who is in the right (if either are), so you might want to suspend the "atrocities" for a bit. But if you feel strongly that you know the deal, stay with it.

I'm taking everything that our government is "sharing" about this with a grain of salt. A lot of it smells like propaganda to me.

I must admit a partial bias against Russia. Just some of the things they've done in the past. Putin thinks the break up of USSR is the worst thing to happen in the history the world. So I don't trust a thing he says or does. He wants to recapture some of those areas, imo.

I really strongly dislike the Putin party that currently runs Russia. I do not trust anyone who says that their country needs a "greater" region over which they should extend their hegemony. I don't like it when the Nazis did it with their "Lebensraum" and I don't like it when Putin does it with his "Greater Russia."

P.S. I also don't like it when the US does it either (like we did with many Latin American countries) but I'm pretty sure those days are over.

I must admit a partial bias against Russia. Just some of the things they've done in the past. Putin thinks the break up of USSR is the worst thing to happen in the history the world. So I don't trust a thing he says or does. He wants to recapture some of those areas, imo.

I think they both do. They have access to the Black Sea and there oil in the area (that's what I was referring to in post #13).

South Ossetia didn't want to be part of either (as I understand it) but many of them are native Russians, they speak Russian and Russia is claiming that they are protecting them from genocide.

Two sides to that too, I'm sure.

^ talk about a power grab. He changed the whatever-it-is so he could stay in power. He is scary, imo.

And the world stands by and does nothing.

What do you expect that the world could/would do? Be specific.

Nuke the shit out em. <-- just kidding.

Seriously I'm just kind of having some fun with all y'all... but wheres the scrutiny the Bush admin rec'd?

Well, I'd say that this is a little presumptuous...


McCain says all Americans back Georgia in struggle

By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer
21 minutes ago

YORK, Pa. - Republican presidential candidate John McCain phoned Georgia's president Tuesday to tell him all Americans back his country's efforts to thwart military attacks from Russia.

McCain told more than 2,000 voters in York, Pa., that he spoke Tuesday morning with Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili to make sure he knows "that the thoughts, prayers and support of the American people are with that great little nation as it struggles today" for independence.

"I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain said to loud applause. He said Saakashvili asked him to express his thanks to Americans.

McCain said Moscow is using "violence against Georgia to send a signal" to "any country that chooses to associate with the West." Russian leaders, he said, must realize they risk "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

Both McCain and his Democratic opponent, Barack Obama, have called for a multi-pronged diplomatic approach to pressure Russia to withdraw from Georgia, a former republic of the Soviet Union. Georgia has been trying to keep the pro-Moscow province of South Ossetia from breaking away.

Obama, who is vacationing in Hawaii, said in a statement Tuesday: "Now is the time for action not just words. It is past time for the Russian government to immediately sign and implement a cease-fire. Russia must halt its violation of Georgian airspace and withdraw its ground forces from Georgia, with international monitors to verify that these obligations are met."

^I agree with you Glenn. This isn't like the Nazi's gassing people (where it was clear who the bad guy was). How can he say everyone is behind the Georgians?

He said "I speak for every American" if you don't support Georgia, you are a communist or something. :)

That's what I meant about some of this stuff smelling like propaganda.

Nuke the shit out em. <-- just kidding.

Seriously I'm just kind of having some fun with all y'all... but wheres the scrutiny the Bush admin rec'd?

Still not sure what you're asking. Do you mean worldwide? They've been pretty much condemned for it by anyone who's weighed in. Do you mean in the american media? I haven't seen a single report that wasn't critical of the russians.

If you're saying it should be as big a story as what our own government does... well, foreign news that doesn't involve americans never, ever gets top billing in media that targets american audiences.

Yes, pretty much worldwide, but here in the US too.

I guess Europe shuts up because Russia is a huge Oil supplier to Europe. So Europe pretty much shuts up about the whole land grab or attempts to control the oil pipeline in the area by Russia.

Will Oil or Religion cause WW3?

Yes, pretty much worldwide, but here in the US too.

I guess Europe shuts up because Russia is a huge Oil supplier to Europe. So Europe pretty much shuts up about the whole land grab or attempts to control the oil pipeline in the area by Russia.


Europe didn't call Russia out in terms as harsh as America did, however Sarkozy did go to Russia on behalf of the EU to help negotiate a cease-fire. So it's fair to say europe got actively involved.

Your point about Russia being europe's energy supplier is valid though it's not oil, which can be shipped freely to/from anywhere in the world, but natural gas that is the gun Russia holds to europe's head. They've already demonstrated a willingness to choke off the flow if they feel it's in their interests. Most of what doesn't flow through Russia flows through... Georgia. The EU has to handle the bear carefully or it will be a very long, cold winter.


Will Oil or Religion cause WW3?
You can make a good argument for either religion (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/frank-schaeffer/why-russia-invaded-georgi_b_118344.html) or oil. (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/08/12/the-wests-dependence-on-r_n_118384.html)

Europe didn't call Russia out in terms as harsh as America did, however Sarkozy did go to Russia on behalf of the EU to help negotiate a cease-fire. So it's fair to say europe got actively involved.

Your point about Russia being europe's energy supplier is valid though it's not oil, which can be shipped freely to/from anywhere in the world, but natural gas that is the gun Russia holds to europe's head. They've already demonstrated a willingness to choke off the flow if they feel it's in their interests. Most of what doesn't flow through Russia flows through... Georgia. The EU has to handle the bear carefully or it will be a very long, cold winter.

What do I know? btw...I like Sarkozy.

Yea, thats what I meant, natural gas.

Well, well, well...


McCain adviser got money from Georgia

By PETE YOST, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON – John McCain's chief foreign policy adviser and his business partner lobbied the senator or his staff on 49 occasions in a 3 1/2-year span while being paid hundreds of thousands of dollars by the government of the former Soviet republic of Georgia.

The payments raise ethical questions about the intersection of Randy Scheunemann's personal financial interests and his advice to the Republican presidential candidate who is seizing on Russian aggression in Georgia as a campaign issue.

McCain warned Russian leaders Tuesday that their assault in Georgia risks "the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world."

On April 17, a month and a half after Scheunemann stopped working for Georgia, his partner signed a $200,000 agreement with the Georgian government. The deal added to an arrangement that brought in more than $800,000 to the two-man firm from 2004 to mid-2007. For the duration of the campaign, Scheunemann is taking a leave of absence from the firm.

"Scheunemann's work as a lobbyist poses valid questions about McCain's judgment in choosing someone who — and whose firm — are paid to promote the interests of other nations," said New York University law professor Stephen Gillers. "So one must ask whether McCain is getting disinterested advice, at least when the issues concern those nations."

"If McCain wants advice from someone whose private interests as a once and future lobbyist may affect the objectivity of the advice, that's his choice to make."

McCain has been to Georgia three times since 1997 and "this is an issue that he has been involved with for well over a decade," said McCain campaign spokesman Brian Rogers.

McCain's strong condemnation in recent days of Russia's military action against Georgia as "totally, absolutely unacceptable" reflects long-standing ties between McCain and hardline conservatives such as Scheunemann, an aide in the 1990s to then-Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott.

Scheunemann, who also was a foreign policy adviser in McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, has for years traveled the same road as McCain in pushing for regime change in Iraq and promoting NATO membership for Georgia and other former Soviet republics.

While their politics coincide, Russia's invasion of Georgia casts a spotlight on Scheunemann's business interests and McCain's conduct as a senator.

Scheunemann's firm lobbied McCain's office on four bills and resolutions regarding Georgia, with McCain as a co-sponsor or supporter of all of them.

In addition to the 49 contacts with McCain or his staff regarding Georgia, Scheunemann's firm has lobbied the senator or his aides on at least 47 occasions since 2001 on behalf of the governments of Taiwan and Macedonia, which each paid Scheunemann and his partner Mike Mitchell over half a million dollars; Romania, which paid over $400,000; and Latvia, which paid nearly $250,000. Federal law requires Scheunemann to publicly disclose to the Justice Department all his lobbying contacts as an agent of a foreign government.

After contacts with McCain's staff, the senator introduced a resolution saluting the people of Georgia on the first anniversary of the Rose Revolution that brought Mikhail Saakashvili to power.

Four months ago, on the same day that Scheunemann's partner signed the latest $200,000 agreement with Georgia, McCain spoke with Saakashvili by phone. The senator then issued a strong statement saying that "we must not allow Russia to believe it has a free hand to engage in policies that undermine Georgian sovereignty."

Rogers, the McCain campaign spokesman, said the call took place at the request of the embassy of Georgia. And McCain campaign spokeswoman Nicolle Wallace added that the senator has full confidence in Scheunemann. "We're proud of anyone who has worked on the side of angels in fledgling democracies," she said in an interview.

McCain called Saakashvili again on Tuesday. "I told him that I know I speak for every American when I said to him, today, we are all Georgians," McCain told a cheering crowd in York, Pa. McCain's Democratic rival, Barack Obama, had spoken with Saakashvili the day before.

In 2005 and 2006, McCain signed onto a resolution expressing support for the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia; introduced a resolution expressing support for a peace plan for Georgia's breakaway province of Ossetia; and co-sponsored a measure supporting admission of four nations including Georgia into NATO.

On Tuesday, McCain told Fox News that "as you know, through the NATO membership, ... if a member nation is attacked, it is viewed as an attack on all."

Scheunemann's lobbying firm is one of three that he has operated since 1999, with clients including BP Amoco, defense contractor Lockheed Martin Corp. and the National Rifle Association.

Scheunemann is part of the community of neoconservatives who relentlessly pushed for war in Iraq.

No one in Washington is more closely aligned with the Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq than prominent neoconservatives, who for years had regime change in Iraq as a goal as part of their philosophy that the United States shouldn't be reluctant to use its power, both diplomatic and military, to spread democracy and to guarantee world order.

Now, McCain and other politicians who pushed for the invasion are seeking to emphasize the progress, albeit fragile, of the current troop surge in Iraq.

In the months before the war began, Scheuenemann ran the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq, set up in November 2002 when public support for the looming invasion was eroding.

Before that, Scheunemann was on board with the Project for the New American Century, whose letter to Bush nine days after the Sept. 11 attacks pointed to Iraq as a possible link to the terrorists.

The letter said American forces must be prepared to support "by all means necessary" the U.S. government's commitment to opponents of Saddam Hussein.

Scheunemann was among the letter's 37 signers, a Who's Who of neoconservative luminaries including William Kristol and Richard Perle.

If anything, Scheunemann's duties have been enhanced from McCain's 2000 presidential campaign, when Scheunemann also advised McCain on national security and foreign policy issues.

Earlier in his political career, McCain displayed the kind of caution that could be expected from someone who fought in Vietnam and was a prisoner of war.

In 1983, McCain urged U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon. "I do not see any obtainable objectives in Lebanon, and the longer we stay there, the harder it will be to leave," he said.

As the United States prepared for the first Gulf war, McCain was among a handful of members in Congress who began raising caution flags about the operation.

"If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly," said McCain. "Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood."

Will Oil or Religion cause WW3?
Yes

Will Oil or Religion cause WW3?
H2O

lol

Since I'm getting answers to my questions, is Ossetia pronounced:

This is my fucked up phonetic attempts,

Ossesha or O set ee ah

It varies some but what I'm hearing most often is O set cha.

Ossesha or O set ee ah
It's pronounced "Ghost Recon".

Russia's occupation of Georgia continues. They say one thing and do another.

There was no reason for them to go as far south as they did. They won't let the Georgian peeps go to their homes.

...and the world stands idly by...

See the sig.

"Russian TV has become blatant propaganda machine" Independent Russian TV analyst.

I don't think she will have a long career talking like this in Russia.

"Russian TV has become blatant propaganda machine" Independent Russian TV analyst.

*cough*

My new National Geographic mag has a big article on Russia, I think it mostly focuses on the normal folk like us and how they lead their daily lives. Been meaning to read it just haven't had time in the last couple days.



Also Russia seized 4 US humvees in Georgia, but apparantly they are just shipping them back to us so there's no beef. *cough again*

GWB is scared of Russia and rightfully so otherwise we would have, at least vocally, laid the smack down and told them to back off of Georgia in a much stronger way. We can't even win in Iraq or find Osama, plus our troops are all overextended as is so what does Pupin care what we think.

Oh, do not hate. We can still wipe regimes right off any map. It's random fucks with bombs strapped unto beasts of burden we can' handle. Russia has plenty of reason to watch their step.

IMO, Putin is swingin the big dick cuz Russia has become miracuously wealthy due to oil prices. They are becoming a SP again.

GDub and Rice did make some fairly poignant comments to Russia both publicly and I'm sure behind the scenes, but with NATO being nothing more than a name anymore, it would have to Bush going it alone again.

And the UN...excuse me while I laugh.

Oh, do not hate. We can still wipe regimes right off any map. It's random fucks with bombs strapped unto beasts of burden we can' handle. Russia has plenty of reason to watch their step.

Destruction is still mutual and assured.

IMO, Putin is swingin the big dick cuz Russia has become miracuously wealthy due to oil prices. They are becoming a SP again.
The U.S. being relatively impotent on a number of fronts (military, financial, political) by overextending its forces wouldn't have anything to do with it, would it? It's as much "the U.S. has gotten poorer" as "Russia has gotten wealthy", and there's no "miraculous" about it.

And the reason is the Libs wouldn't let us drill. The troops being in Iraq have nothing to do with it. What, are you actually saying if our troops were home Bush should put them at the border of Russia? yea right.

I forgot Bush destroyed the economy too. Nothing to do with the world economy.

Don't you remember your Cold War dynamic? The fear that one side or another -might- respond and stick the big dick into your shit is what kept both sides and their proxies from blowing things up most of the time.

The U.S. is overextended, looking more like an unloaded gun than a loaded gun as time goes on. Unloaded guns are less scary. We've got war on two different fronts, a dollar that's fallen ~50% in worldwide value in the past 6 years, and a lame duck President who's not much on diplomacy.

Don't you remember your Cold War dynamic? The fear that one side or another -might- respond and stick the big dick into your shit is what kept both sides and their proxies from blowing things up most of the time.

The U.S. is overextended, looking more like an unloaded gun than a loaded gun as time goes on. Unloaded guns are less scary. We've got war on two different fronts, a dollar that's fallen ~50% in worldwide value in the past 6 years, and a lame duck President who's not much on diplomacy.


http://img378.imageshack.us/img378/5258/tahownedzi4.jpg

:hides under desk:

Don't you remember your Cold War dynamic? The fear that one side or another -might- respond and stick the big dick into your shit is what kept both sides and their proxies from blowing things up most of the time.

The U.S. is overextended, looking more like an unloaded gun than a loaded gun as time goes on. Unloaded guns are less scary. We've got war on two different fronts, a dollar that's fallen ~50% in worldwide value in the past 6 years, and a lame duck President who's not much on diplomacy.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

I saw yesterday that Putin is claiming that the Russia/Georgia conflict was instigated by the U.S. to help McCain.

I'd sooner believe he did it to distract from Iraq, if he were significantly involved (as opposed to negligently involved).

H2O

I have seen people say this a lot. water infrastructure, public health, and economics are my vocation and i just have to say that it is very unlikely that world wars would be fought over water. why? because water is relatively cheap to recycle. reverse osmosis treatment is used by the space station and could be used down here to purify drinking water continuously. in addition, we, like most countries waste a ton of water. If the cost of water were to spike, we could easily limit consumption/waste with little to no change in quality of life. Finally, it is extremely difficult to transport water, so wealthy countries have no incentive to attack distant countries to steal their water. They would spend rediculous amounts to ship it back.

that said regional wars over water are very possible. Many believe that egypt has intentionally destablized govts. in ethiopia and the sudan to maintain their dominant share of nile water. others have noted lack of water (food more generally) can often stoke the flames of ethnic discontent such as in rwanda. If global warming leads to expected changes in precipitation, international food markets will become more and more important. in fact, saudi arabia is already purchasing farm land in other countries to ensure their food supply. in the mid to late 21st century, the us will likely reassert itself as an agricultural powerhouse (factory farms will become the new working class manufacturing jobs).

anyways, that is my prediction fwiw.

back to russia, I have found anti-neocon conservatives have provided the best insights. as far as i can tell, this is main chronology

1. bush fails in winning over 'old europe' for his iraqi adventure and presses 'new europe' to become involved as a way to speed up their western-style democracy/capitalism/etc.

2. the countries desire acceptance in the west to both improve their economic standing and reduce their risk of being absorbed back into russia.

3. despite very low standards of living and economic development, georgia devotes a disproportionate share of resources to developing their military (primarily in ways that help the US: counterinsurgency and counterrorism)

4. georgia believes that acceptance to nato is imminent and sends 1000 troops to iraq.

5. georgia wants to reclaim teritory in obstensibly independent states and launches an ill-advised and ill-conceived attack. in fact, it is believed that the us state dept. explicitly warned against such attacks

6. russia has been awaiting any provocation to justify a georgian invasion and uses the opportunity to flex its muscles and delgitimize the existing regime.

7. the georgian regime is surprised to learn that the west has no intention of becoming involved in a meaningful way. the pres. thinks that bush/mccain lied to them about their intentions about admitting georgia to nato and fast-tracking their westernization. the people also feel misled and become considerably more anti-west.

8. bush does not seem much concerned about the georgian crisis and goofs off at the olympics for 3 days. in the meantime, mccain's top foreign policy advisor is a paid georgian lobbyist. so, mccain helps his advisor's business by making some tough statements that have no real authority.

9. sec of state rice is sent to georgia, but also lacks any real leverage and makes some measured statements. obama makes an even more measured statement that requests more international involvement.

10. georgia essentially surrenders and russians have control over large portions of georgian territory. mccain retracts his most bellicose statements. despite this retraction, the media declares mccain to be 'more presidential' despite his recklessness and despite the fact that he has no real power anyway. however, there is massive removal of foreign capital from the russian economy because investors fear that russia is becoming increasingly unstable. This economic hit is much more coercive than the statements of bush/rice/mccain/obama combined and causes russia to pause and reduce its momentum somewhat. in fact, this is somewhat similar to friedman's 'mcdonalds effect' essay on the effect of globalization and world wars.

in summary, i don't think any of the american leaders' statements had much of an effect. it is not clear to me why russia would ever feel obliged to respond to candidates' statements. they are still just sitting senators with single votes for long term policy. bush and rice's statements were also hollow, especially because of the expended political and military capital expended for iraq. the us is no longer the leader of the free world. in fact, economic consequences in europe are likely to be a far larger concern than bellicose statements from washington.

my greatest concern is the fact that mccain's chief foreign policy advisor is a paid foreign lobbyist. his firm is still receiving money from georgia even if he is not paid directly. what is the line between his job as lobbyist and his role as advisor. even pat buchanan wrote an article that sheunemann (sp?) could have been considered a traitor for putting georgia first (in times gone by).

As far as governing philosophies, mccain is reckless and impulsive and sees no problem in stoking confrontations or going in it alone. obama wants to manage crises by leveraging consequences with other countries. while mccain is reckless, obama may respond too slowly. obviously, i prefer obama's approach and think that mccain is in fact more dangerous than bush. a lot of the people that have been purged from the bush doctrine are reappearing as mccain advisors. the current bust team is mostly led by rice and gates who are more from realism school than the neocon school. despite the fact that the last two years of bush have much much more successiful than the previous 5, mccain wants to go all in with the same neocon idiots.

Russian McDonalds don't give you ice for your beverages.

Russia needs a lot more than it provides. The solution is built in.

back to russia, I have found anti-neocon conservatives have provided the best insights. as far as i can tell, this is main chronology

1. bush fails in winning over 'old europe' for his iraqi adventure and presses 'new europe' to become involved as a way to speed up their western-style democracy/capitalism/etc.

2. the countries desire acceptance in the west to both improve their economic standing and reduce their risk of being absorbed back into russia.

3. despite very low standards of living and economic development, georgia devotes a disproportionate share of resources to developing their military (primarily in ways that help the US: counterinsurgency and counterrorism)

4. georgia believes that acceptance to nato is imminent and sends 1000 troops to iraq.

5. georgia wants to reclaim teritory in obstensibly independent states and launches an ill-advised and ill-conceived attack. in fact, it is believed that the us state dept. explicitly warned against such attacks

6. russia has been awaiting any provocation to justify a georgian invasion and uses the opportunity to flex its muscles and delgitimize the existing regime.

7. the georgian regime is surprised to learn that the west has no intention of becoming involved in a meaningful way. the pres. thinks that bush/mccain lied to them about their intentions about admitting georgia to nato and fast-tracking their westernization. the people also feel misled and become considerably more anti-west.

8. bush does not seem much concerned about the georgian crisis and goofs off at the olympics for 3 days. in the meantime, mccain's top foreign policy advisor is a paid georgian lobbyist. so, mccain helps his advisor's business by making some tough statements that have no real authority.

9. sec of state rice is sent to georgia, but also lacks any real leverage and makes some measured statements. obama makes an even more measured statement that requests more international involvement.

10. georgia essentially surrenders and russians have control over large portions of georgian territory. mccain retracts his most bellicose statements. despite this retraction, the media declares mccain to be 'more presidential' despite his recklessness and despite the fact that he has no real power anyway. however, there is massive removal of foreign capital from the russian economy because investors fear that russia is becoming increasingly unstable. This economic hit is much more coercive than the statements of bush/rice/mccain/obama combined and causes russia to pause and reduce its momentum somewhat. in fact, this is somewhat similar to friedman's 'mcdonalds effect' essay on the effect of globalization and world wars.

in summary, i don't think any of the american leaders' statements had much of an effect. it is not clear to me why russia would ever feel obliged to respond to candidates' statements. they are still just sitting senators with single votes for long term policy. bush and rice's statements were also hollow, especially because of the expended political and military capital expended for iraq. the us is no longer the leader of the free world. in fact, economic consequences in europe are likely to be a far larger concern than bellicose statements from washington.

my greatest concern is the fact that mccain's chief foreign policy advisor is a paid foreign lobbyist. his firm is still receiving money from georgia even if he is not paid directly. what is the line between his job as lobbyist and his role as advisor. even pat buchanan wrote an article that sheunemann (sp?) could have been considered a traitor for putting georgia first (in times gone by).

As far as governing philosophies, mccain is reckless and impulsive and sees no problem in stoking confrontations or going in it alone. obama wants to manage crises by leveraging consequences with other countries. while mccain is reckless, obama may respond too slowly. obviously, i prefer obama's approach and think that mccain is in fact more dangerous than bush. a lot of the people that have been purged from the bush doctrine are reappearing as mccain advisors. the current bust team is mostly led by rice and gates who are more from realism school than the neocon school. despite the fact that the last two years of bush have much much more successiful than the previous 5, mccain wants to go all in with the same neocon idiots.

LOL

my greatest concern is the fact that mccain's chief foreign policy advisor is a paid foreign lobbyist. his firm is still receiving money from georgia even if he is not paid directly. what is the line between his job as lobbyist and his role as advisor.

How are you going to get people with expertise when real-world experience is attacked as being in someone's pocket? As long as their connections are made public, I don't see anything sinister in it.

How are you going to get people with expertise when real-world experience is attacked as being in someone's pocket? As long as their connections are made public, I don't see anything sinister in it.

In the foreign policy advising universe, there are surely a large number of non-lobbyists: members of other administrations, people at think tanks, former military, former state dept., former cia, even university profs. When you are actually paid to lobby for other countries, you become unique. I would never suggest that a foreign policy team should have no experience or no pre-existing biases, just that they are not paid lobbyists. Here is a list of obama's advisors. I don't have time to check how many are registered lobbyists, but i would assume that few if any are.

Former Amb. Jeffrey Bader, President Clinton’s National Security Council Asia specialist and now head of Brookings’s China center, national security adviser

Mark Brzezinski, President Clinton’s National Security Council Southeast Europe specialist and now a partner at law firm McGuireWoods, national security adviser

Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Carter’s national security adviser and now a Center for Strategic and International Studies counselor and trustee and frequent guest on PBS’s NewsHour with Jim Lehrer, foreign policy adviser

Richard A. Clarke, President Clinton and President George W. Bush’s counterterrorism czar and now head of Good Harbor Consulting and an ABC News contributor, sometimes Obama adviser

Gregory B. Craig, State Department director of policy planning under President Clinton and now a partner at law firm Williams & Connolly, foreign policy adviser

Roger W. Cressey, former National Security Council counterterrorism staffer and now Good Harbor Consulting president and NBC News consultant, has advised Obama but says not exclusive

Ivo H. Daalder, National Security Council director for European affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Richard Danzig, President Clinton’s Navy secretary and now a Center for Strategic and International Analysis fellow, national security adviser

Philip H. Gordon, President Clinton’s National Security Council staffer for Europe and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Maj. Gen. J. (Jonathan) Scott Gration, a 32-year Air Force veteran and now CEO of Africa anti-poverty effort Millennium Villages, national security adviser and surrogate

Lawrence J. Korb, assistant secretary of defense from 1981-1985 and now a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, informal foreign policy adviser

W. Anthony Lake, President Clinton’s national security adviser and now a professor at Georgetown’s school of foreign service, foreign policy adviser

James M. Ludes, former defense and foreign policy adviser to Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., and now executive director of the American Security Project, national security adviser

Robert Malley, President Clinton’s Middle East envoy and now International Crisis Group’s Middle East and North Africa program director, national security adviser

Gen. Merrill A. ("Tony") McPeak, former Air Force chief of staff and now a business consultant, national security adviser

Denis McDonough, Center for American Progress senior fellow and former policy adviser to then-Senate Democratic Leader Tom Daschle, foreign policy coordinator

Samantha Power, Harvard-based human rights scholar and Pulitzer Prize winning writer, foreign policy adviser

Susan E. Rice, President Clinton’s Africa specialist at the State Department and National Security Council and now a Brookings senior fellow, foreign policy adviser

Bruce O. Riedel, former CIA officer and National Security Council staffer for Near East and Asian affairs and now a Brookings senior fellow, national security adviser

Dennis B. Ross, President Clinton’s Middle East negotiator and now a Washington Institute for Near East Policy fellow, Middle East adviser

Sarah Sewall, deputy assistant secretary of defense for peacekeeping and humanitarian assistance during President Clinton’s administration and now director of Harvard’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy, national security adviser

Daniel B. Shapiro, National Security Council director for legislative affairs during President Clinton’s administration and now a lobbyist with Timmons & Company, Middle East adviser

Mona Sutphen, former aide to President Clinton’s National Security adviser Samuel R. Berger and to United Nations ambassador Bill Richardson and now managing director of business consultancy Stonebridge, national security adviser