“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” — John McCain, speaking Wednesday in Michigan about the crisis in Georgia
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- Daniel on ACORN stole election?
- Daniel on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on Open thread 11/21
- satatom on ACORN stole election?
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- Wahine_Tara on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- Boxlock20 on Open thread 11/21
- cosmos_originally on Open thread 11/21
- JWink on Will GOP contenders be nice to Obama?
119 Comments
Perhaps McCain could have checked out Wikipedia for more information on things that have happened in the 21st century. Sure, it would involve him turning on a computer for the first time in his life. Someone tell him to go to the wiki page on ‘Iraq war’. You know, use the same aide who got information on Georgia from the wiki for McCain’s speech on the subject.
It’s sad when Bush has more knowledge than anyone on a subject, but that’s why the Republicans considered Bush a better choice than McCain in 2000.
My mistake, apparently Condi Rice and George Bush did make similar comments. Republican party and ship of fools come to mind.
John S (for “senile”) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) doesn’t know what century he’s living in.
Remember when he said, “I have fought in wars. I know how to win wars”? Like, which one, would that be, Melanoma Face?
None of the most avid Obama-haters on this forum have come up with any reason whatsoever to vote for this Fred Mertz look-alike.
McCain, a moderate Republican, willing to cross the lines between conservatives, moderates, progressives and liberals, is in the best position today, now in the early 21st Century to see the big picture.
As presidential candidate Ronald Reagan said, he’s “not willing to exploit the youth and inexperience of my opponent.” That’s particularly true today.
MH, not only did McCain say he knew how to win Vietnam (probably involved crashing more planes) but that he knows where Bin Laden is and has a secret plan to catch him. After all, there was absolutely nobody he could inform of his plan over the past seven years. Maybe he thinks he’s hiding somewhere in Czechoslovakia?
At the all too real risk if hijacking this thread, I found this parallel quote in today’s NYT equally hypocritical:
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
Anybody care to venture a guess as to who said it?
#
Pedant
Posted August 16, 2008 at 6:49 am | Permalink
At the all too real risk if hijacking this thread, I found this parallel quote in today’s NYT equally hypocritical:
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
Anybody care to venture a guess as to who said it?
——————————
Dubya
“JWink” fantasizes –
“McCain, a moderate Republican….”
What?!
“Moderate?!”
With a 95% pro-Shrub voting record (when he bothers to show up and vote)?
McC*nt first got MSM flowers for objecting to congressional radical rightists. Being less insane that Mitch McConnel doesn’t make one a “moderate.”
And, besides, John S (for “switcharooo”) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) has flip-flopped on every issue he ever took back when he was cultivating his “maverick” myth.
And you claim McBush “… is in the best position today, now in the early 21st Century to see the big picture“?
I would expect someone who saw “the big picture” could keep track of who the Shi’ites and who the Sunis are in Iraq. You McCainiacs are sure a forgiving lot.
Bingo, dipshit!
Ya think it might have been one of those talking points released by the RNC? :wink:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/08/16/washington/16assess.html?hp
When I heard McCain say that my jaw dropped, does he not know what has happen with his own country since 2003? Maybe the best advise for those supporting McCain is to follow what the McCain for President campaign said of him. “ The Candidate does not speak for the campaign”. And yes the chances that he will win seem to grow everyday for reasons that can only be explain as stupid is as stupid does!
Oh how I long for the days when I was not paying attention to the leaders of this nation. It does get rather frightening at times.
Frankly, in my opinion statements like these two:
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
–George W Bush
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
–John S McCain
For any politician, of any stripe, these aren’t statements to govern by They’re platitudes. I mean, what’s not to like?
More significantly, they’re statements to win elections by.
For today’s GOP, however, such statements made by both the POTUS and the current candidate are especially … rich.
We were already in a stance of combat with Iraq when we invaded the main country. It’s not like we didn’t try for 10 years to get Iraq to cooperate.
Enough was enough and we kicked the dictator and the evil men out of Iraq and gave the country back to the Iraqi people.
I think I have figured it out! McCain is not senile he keeps slipping in-between two alternate dimensions.
A variance of realities where similar occurrences are happening and it is difficult to maintain a cohesive awareness of which dimension he is in at the time. But no he is not senile!
More than anything else, the key statement from the campaign for John S (for “senile”) McCain the Third (for Shrub’s 3rd term) is when they said:
“The candidate does not speak for the campaign.”</i
Let’s just imagine how the Limbaugh-tomized Masses would respond to such a statement if it had referred to the Democratic candidate.
You’ve got a cancerous septuagenarian who can’t keep his enemies straight who broke his wedding vows and abandoned his wife and three kids to boink the Arizona Beer Queen (for her private jet and 8 mansions) even though she’s a “trollop” and a “c*nt” and no one on the Right can come up with a reason to vote for him; they can only spread lies about the uppity Democratic candidate who inspires people, presents a visionary approach to the future, and shows a way to change the way things run after 30 years of Republic Party dominance of Washington D.C.
“We were already in a stance of combat with Iraq when we invaded the main country. It’s not like we didn’t try for 10 years to get Iraq to cooperate.
Enough was enough and we kicked the dictator and the evil men out of Iraq and gave the country back to the Iraqi people.”
Yeah, and we did it by invading the Iraq nation.
How can Bush, etc even make such moronic statements without realizing how stupid it makes them look?
If we kicked out every “evil” leader in order to give a country back to it’s people, we’d be at war with most of the world..and Russia and China would be at the top of the list.
#
Regular
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:08 am | Permalink
We were already in a stance of combat with Iraq when we invaded the main country. It’s not like we didn’t try for 10 years to get Iraq to cooperate.
Enough was enough and we kicked the dictator and the evil men out of Iraq and gave the country back to the Iraqi people.
======================================================
Well, not quite: We’re still there, and the “Iraqi people” keep messing with the voting process, making it a somewhat risky venture, to say the least. So I guess a good definition of “Iraqi People” is in order. Would that be Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Sufi all working together as one?
#
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:29 am | Permalink
#
Regular
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:08 am | Permalink
We were already in a stance of combat with Iraq when we invaded the main country. It’s not like we didn’t try for 10 years to get Iraq to cooperate.
Enough was enough and we kicked the dictator and the evil men out of Iraq and gave the country back to the Iraqi people.
======================================================
Well, not quite: We’re still there, and the “Iraqi people” keep messing with the voting process, making it a somewhat risky venture, to say the least. So I guess a good definition of “Iraqi People” is in order. Would that be Sunni, Shiite, Kurds, Sufi all working together as one?
——————————————–
It’s tribal differences yes. It has existed thousands of years and I’m sure it will exist for thousands of more years.
The Iraqi people do have a say-so in their government now. They have an elected legislature and provincial leaders who represent them.
Before, it was Saddam’s henchmen and the Ba’ath Party who would kill them if they dared disagree with policies or kill them just because they were there.
The average Iraqi is now vested in his country with full partnership to make it successful. It will take them some time to realize the power they have in making their country united and great for Iraqis to live in.
There are some in this country who still hold to anarchist ideas and aspirations. But, as a whole, our country is uniquely governed by and for the people of the United States.
“Regular” notes –
“Before, it was Saddam’s henchmen and the Ba’ath Party who would kill them if they dared disagree with policies or kill them just because they were there.”
Except, “Regular,” the Sunni Muslims who have decided to team up with the American occupiers represent the very Ba’ath Party Saddam Hussein led for 30 years.
“Meet the new boss!
Same as the last boss!”
And the post-WWI borders that carved Iraq out of the old Ottoman Empire made the majority of the people within the borders of Iraq are Shi’ites.
Nothing bad could ever result from an occupying foreign superpower teaming up with a minority group in the cause for, ahem, democracy, now could it?
Ya, reg, like it ain’t going to happen all over again when we leave. Keep them rose-colored glasses clean.
#
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:49 am | Permalink
Ya, reg, like it ain’t going to happen all over again when we leave. Keep them rose-colored glasses clean.
————————–
I prefer optimism to myopic defeatism.
“There are some in this country who still hold to anarchist ideas and aspirations. But, as a whole, our country is uniquely governed by and for the people of the United States.”
WTF has that got to do with Iraq? And, as a whole this country is not governed by the people, but by bought and paid for politicians, both dem and repub. I think your rose colored glasses are so fogged up, you can’t see anything out of them.
#
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:54 am | Permalink
“There are some in this country who still hold to anarchist ideas and aspirations. But, as a whole, our country is uniquely governed by and for the people of the United States.”
WTF has that got to do with Iraq? And, as a whole this country is not governed by the people, but by bought and paid for politicians, both dem and repub. I think your rose colored glasses are so fogged up, you can’t see anything out of them.
———————————-
If you don’t participate in the political system other than to whine, that’s all you’ll see.
Write letters and email to your representatives. Go to City Council meetings and assert your views. Work on a campaign staff or organize a fund raiser for the candidate of your choice.
If a politician doesn’t suit you, vote to get him/her out. If a politician doesn’t conform to your standards, give them an ultimatum and if your cause is just, it will win out in the long run.
To use the excuse that this country is run by ‘bought and paid for politicians’ is a cop out.
And besides, I thought you Lib types were more into the big company conspiracy theory about who controls the country.
Regular
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:53 am | Permalink
I prefer optimism to myopic defeatism.
*************************************************************************
[chortles]
Pedant posted:
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
–George W Bush
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
–John S McCain
For any politician, of any stripe, these aren’t statements to govern by They’re platitudes. I mean, what’s not to like?
More significantly, they’re statements to win elections by.
——–
There, in my opinion, is the truth succinctly written. To us, interested news junkies who strive to keep informed, it seems ludicrous at best. To the masses those statements will be all they hear.
I want to direct this to BlueJay and PMom. I ask you to take note. There is a difference in getting elected and governing.
Moneyhawk you are so bitter about everything. Did you go through an ugly divorce or have something else happen to you over the years?
You must truly be miserable and in pain.
OMG, on a Saturday morning, I’ve been “Limbaughed” by reg on how to be a good American. Out of the mouths of babes, etc . . .
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 8:53 am | Permalink
OMG, on a Saturday morning, I’ve been “Limbaughed” by reg on how to be a good American. Out of the mouths of babes, etc .
—————————
Just saving you from your routine of whining and complaining.
“sunflower5″ repeats –
“Moneyhawk you are so bitter about everything. Did you go through an ugly divorce or have something else happen to you over the years?
You must truly be miserable and in pain.”
Perhaps you might get specific on how you’ve taken a leap from logic to come up with “an ugly divorce“?
If it weren’t for non sequiturs you’d have no sequiturs at all.
I’m trying to figure out what exactly you meant by that, Linda. I believe that I do know the difference.
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
We’ll have to be sure to remind him of that when he becomes president and invades Iran. I guess that doesn’t include countries that have UN sanctions against them. Israel, anyone?
I find it interesting that people who use UN sanctions as justification for war are the same people who think we should pull out of the UN and that it serves no useful purpose.
I’m positive you know the difference, PMom. But it can’t hurt to ask you to think about your position and vote, can it? I respect you and your opinions, I think you do mine. I want the Republicans marginalized. They have done such harm to our country. So, I was campaigning. Maybe I should have only directed my request for thinking again to BlueJay who often asks the question about Obama’s desire to work with those on the other side of the aisle.
If Republican presidents and candidates for president can use such outrageous statements as the one this thread is all about, why can’t Obama also say he will work with anyone and then set his own agenda?
What did we do in Iraq?
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
–George W Bush
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.”
–John S McCain
lindainks55
Posted August 16, 2008 at 9:50 am
Linda, You’re wasting your time. The remaining Hillary holdouts are going to cost the Democrats the election.
“I want the Republicans marginalized. They have done such harm to our country.”
You are so right. Too bad some people will let their chagrin at losing the primaries get in the way of good sense.
oooooooooooooooopsy daisy.
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 7:54 am | Permalink
“There are some in this country who still hold to anarchist ideas and aspirations. But, as a whole, our country is uniquely governed by and for the people of the United States.”
WTF has that got to do with Iraq? And, as a whole this country is not governed by the people, but by bought and paid for politicians, both dem and repub. I think your rose colored glasses are so fogged up, you can’t see anything out of them.
Kids born to rich parents of corporations that make their way into politics, are citizens too, duh. So yes, we have a government, for the people by the people. It just may be a little easier with people with money and connections to make their way into the politcal world. It dosne’t make it wrong though. If that’s the case, lets blame starving kids in Africa for being born to poor parents.
“The remaining Hillary holdouts are going to cost the Democrats the election.”
Oh come on XXX you can’t buy in to that.
That’s just the Obama supporters hold out excuse if he can’t win. Well that and that Obama is not white.
Why does Obama need an excuse if he does not win? How in the world can he lose when his opponent makes a statement so at odds with his own actions?
This is great material for a campaign ad.
Feature McCain making this statement.
Then follow it with him joking “bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb, bomb Iran.”
BlueJay
Posted August 16, 2008 at 10:44 am | Permalink
“The remaining Hillary holdouts are going to cost the Democrats the election.”
Oh come on XXX you can’t buy in to that.
_____________________________________________
Actually BJ, I do. Who would you rather see as president, McCain, or Obama. Just those 2 choices.
If Hillary would have won the primary, she would have had my support. If Obama loses this election, Hillary will run again. She won’t get my support. Not after the way her holdout supporters have conducted themselves.
John McCain is going to win this election because Democrats can’t bury their differences and work together as a team. If they can’t do it this time, I see no reason to support Democrats in the future.
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” —
Iraq lost that status when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Iraq was THEN invaded, when Iraq violated the cease fire agreement.
This is perfectly clear! Iraq was punished for the invasion of a neighboring country, and for failing to behave, after being forced out of that other country.
Franklin
Posted August 16, 2008 at 11:13 am | Permalink
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” —
Iraq lost that status when Iraq invaded Kuwait
_____________________________________________
Paul, please show me what international law supports your assertion.
It won’t matter who “wins”, Obama or the other one. Neither one will leave Iraq or the Mid-East. We’ll have some Inaugural Terror Attack and either side will have a portrait of the other on their wall. We’ll all mindlessly rally behind which ever dipshit that was “elected”, as they stand upon whatever pile of debris is there, saying whatever it is that will make us resolute again. We are so predictable.
I said elected…heh heh.
XXX
The CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT, signed by Iraq, after Iraq was forced back, out of Iraq, gave us the right to enforce that agreement.
Our very membership in the United Nations reserves the RIGHT of “member states” to enforce United Nations Resolutions, unilaterally.
The United Nations Resolutions that Iraq violated clearly allowed for member states to enforce those resolutions, on their own.
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” any more than a man on parole, after a sentence for rape or assault, is a “free man” —
If such a convicted felon, on probation or parole, went to the home of his prior victim(s) and cursed at them, that would be a VIOLATION of his probation or parole, and he would find himself back in jail, or in prison!
His attorney could NOT say that the 1st Amendment applied to that criminal, in the same way it applied to the rest of us. He would not be a “free citizen of the United States” in the full meaning of the law.
Such a criminal would not be allowed to intimidate, or even contact, witnesses. What if he had done this crime more than once, and one of his prior victims was going to testify against him, in another trial, or during the sentencing phase?
What if their was an additional restraining order or POA against him?
What if the TERMS of his release, on parole or probation, said that he was NOT to contact his prior victims?
The same was true of the Criminal Iraq regime, while Saddam was in power.
Saddam could have been removed by George H.W. Bush, after Iraq was pushed out of Kuwait.
Instead, George H.W. Bush agreed to a cease fire, and allowed Saddam to stay in power, with RESTRICTIONS.
Restrictions which Saddam ignored and violated, on a regular basis!
Saddam Hussiens Iraq was not a “free, sovereign State” — Saddam Hussien’s Iraq was a criminal regime limited by a cease fire agreement that it had signed, and limited by United Nations sanction.
If United Nations sanctions are NOT to be enforced?
Let’s get RID of the United Nations!
Is Pat Roberts getting a free ride from Kansas media and powder puff Rotary Club lunches for his role in helping Bush and Cheney lie their way into their Misbegotten War and subsequent cover up? Is Roberts contending that a trillion dollar-4,000 death war is old hat, time to move on, let’s forget about it? Someone needs to ask Roberts what he knows about the post-invasion letter, faked by the CIA, to help justify the WMD ruse. Looks like he was part of the lie.
Let’s face it: the rationale for the war was a lie; not a misjudgment, as Cheney and Roberts might argue. It was based on a lie. Is that a good foundation for the continuing occupation?
Really, the wheels of justice might churn slowly, but they churn nevertheless.
should have said
“The cease fire agreement, signed by Iraq, after Iraq was forced out of Kuwait” of course.
Justice?
For what?
A large number of Democrats supported what George W. Bush did.
A large number of Clinton loyalists had supported “regime change” even while Bill Clinton was still President.
Franklin, after the many times I have seen you bitch and moan here about the UN, then to have you DEFEND them on the Iraqi cease fire, it is just too comical!!
President George W. Bush
The White House
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500 USA
We respectfully ask our government to help stop the tens of thousands of preventable deaths that occur every day from hunger and poverty-related diseases.
Specifically, we ask our country to honor the agreement it made and signed at the 2002 Monterrey Conference and again at the 2002 Johannesburg Summit to make concrete efforts towards giving 0.7% of our national income in aid to poor countries.
The United Nations estimates that when all 22 countries that signed the agreement meet the 0.7% goal, the resulting $195 billion each year will be enough to effectively end hunger and extreme poverty in the world.
We commend the countries that have already reached the 0.7% goal: Denmark, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden.
We also commend the countries that have set up a schedule to meet the 0.7% goal and encourage them in their efforts to reach it as soon as possible: Austria, Belgium, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Portugal, Spain, and the United Kingdom.
We respectfully ask the six remaining countries to honor their agreement and set up a schedule to reach the 0.7% goal: Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Switzerland, and the United States.
Thank you.
2006 International Aid Donated COUNTRY Aid as % of income How close to the
0.7% goal
Norway 0.95 Already reached goal
Sweden 0.93 Already reached goal
Luxembourg 0.90 Already reached goal
Denmark 0.81 Already reached goal
Netherlands 0.81 Already reached goal
Ireland 0.54 Scheduled for 2012
Austria 0.49 Scheduled for 2015
Belgium 0.43 Scheduled for 2010
Spain 0.41 Scheduled for 2012
Finland 0.40 Scheduled for 2010
France 0.39 Scheduled for 2012
Germany 0.37 Scheduled for 2014
Switzerland 0.37 No schedule yet
Un. Kingdom 0.36 Scheduled for 2013
Australia 0.30 No schedule yet
Canada 0.28 No schedule yet
New Zealand 0.27 No schedule yet
Italy 0.19 Scheduled for 2015
Portugal 0.19 Scheduled for 2015
Japan 0.17 No schedule yet
Greece 0.16 Scheduled for 2015
USA 0.16 No schedule yet
Source: OECD
“A large number of Clinton loyalists had supported “regime change” even while Bill Clinton was still President.” [Franklin]
Ummmm “Regime Change” is one thing…. A full scale invasion and WAR is quite something different!
Saddam was tricked into invading Kuwait. Our criminals in government told him we wouldn’t get in the way…we, sorry the criminal Bushs’ lied then too.
“Iraq lost that status when Iraq invaded Kuwait
_____________________________________________
Paul, please show me what international law supports your assertion.”
They are the same concepts used by Russia toinvade Georgia over S Ossetia and Abkhazia.
Remember; Bush and Putin are soulmates … and apparently Paul as well!
Franklin
Posted August 16, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
XXX
The CEASE FIRE AGREEMENT, signed by Iraq, after Iraq was forced back, out of Iraq, gave us the right to enforce that agreement.
Our very membership in the United Nations reserves the RIGHT of “member states” to enforce United Nations Resolutions, unilaterally.
The United Nations Resolutions that Iraq violated clearly allowed for member states to enforce those resolutions, on their own.
Iraq was NOT a “sovereign nation” any more than a man on parole, after a sentence for rape or assault, is a “free man” —
________________________________________________
BS Paul. Show me any international law that says Iraq was not a sovereign nation. Leave your opinion out of it.
Iraq was NOT a sovereign nation.
Iraq forfeited such status when Iraq invaded Kuwait and when Iraq violated several United Nations Resolutions.
Definitions make my case:
http://www.hawaii-nation.org/sovereignty.html
(This is from an Hawaii independence forum — but the quotes are instructive)
BTH
I think Georgia was lured into a trap, when Georgia tryed to force Ossetia to remain a part of Georgia.
However, just as Hitler took advantage of Germans in the “Sudentenland” so Putin and Russia will try to take all of Georgia, not just the area inhabited by Russian nationals.
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary
(1856 Edition)
SOVEREIGN STATE. One which governs itself independently of any foreign power.
SOVEREIGNTY. The union and exercise of all human power possessed in a state; it is a combination of all power; it is the power to do everything in a state without accountability; to make laws, to execute and to apply them: to impose and collect taxes, and, levy, contributions; to make war or peace; to form treaties of alliance or of commerce with foreign nations, and the like. Story on the Const. §207.
2. Abstractedly, sovereignty resides in the body of the nation and belongs to the people. But these powers are generally exercised by delegation.
3. When analysed, sovereignty is naturally divided into three great powers; namely, the legislative, the executive, and the judiciary; the first is the power to make new laws, and to correct and repeal the old; the second is the power to execute the laws both at home and abroad; and the last is the power to apply the laws to particular facts; to judge the disputes which arise among the citizens, and to punish crimes.
“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” — John McCain
I see NO distinction about whether the nation is or isn’t ANYTHING, including sovereign. What correlation are you trying to make here, Franklin? What’s your point?
Iraq invaded Kuwait, illegally.
In doing so, Iraq forfeited the rights of a sovereign nation.
Nations that invade other nations will be punished.
Iraq was punished.
Iraq first agreed to said punishment, then Iraq violated the terms of that agreement.
If we TRULY wanted to make an example of Saddam, and enforce the idea that nations do not invade other nations, then we HAD to invade the non-sovereign territory of Iraq, to enforce that rule.
Otherwise, we would be saying that nations COULD invade other nations, with impunity.
The perfectly legal invasion of Iraq, to punish Iraq for the illegal invasion of Kuwait, and for violating the agreements made thereafter, actually ENFORCES the doctrin that:
NATIONS DO NOT INVADE OTHER NATIONS —
Without risk of invasion, themselves!
“Putin and Russia will try to take all of Georgia, not just the area inhabited by Russian nationals.’
My prediction stands – Russia will withdraw from most of Georgia outside of Ossetia and Abkhazia. However they will leave a crippled Georgia not unlike Vichey France. And Putin’s soulmate Bush will approve.
I think I’ll go with what he did say vs. your interpretation. Maybe McCain knows what he was thinking and meant to say. Maybe not! Maybe he will read you here and amend what he actually said.
“… we do have some bases now, in Iraq, from which we can help in Georgia.”
Hey Paul – how’s that working out so far?
Oh how I long for the days when I was not paying attention to the leaders of this nation. It does get rather frightening at times.
I couldn’t have said it better, writerdog.
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
–George W Bush
So what, exactly, was the Axis of Evil?
Too bad some of those who talk the talk can’t walk the walk.
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
–George W Bush
So what, exactly, was the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq?
If the Republicans really want to win in November, they need to Super Glue Dubya’s mouth shut. As soon as the glue dries, they need to do the same to McCain.
And i would add ‘just what is singing Bomb bomb bomb Iran’ supposed to be?
Enough was enough and we kicked the dictator and the evil men out of Iraq and gave the country back to the Iraqi people.
LMAO
Good one, Ben. :)
Pre, I think they got it covered by telling the world the candidate doesn’t speak for the campaign. ;-)
It’s tribal differences yes. It has existed thousands of years and I’m sure it will exist for thousands of more years.
Then pray tell, dear Regular, why anyone thought Iraq could be a democracy?
Or was that just a ruse?
Linda,
Here’s what I need clarified. Just WHO is the campaign?
Maybe that will be the October surprise?
We’ll have to be sure to remind him of that when he becomes president and invades Iran. I guess that doesn’t include countries that have UN sanctions against them. Israel, anyone?
I find it interesting that people who use UN sanctions as justification for war are the same people who think we should pull out of the UN and that it serves no useful purpose.
All right, XXX!!
Well, Linda, you know my “take” on all this. My “conspiracy theory” on the McCain nomination. ;)
So if I’m even close to correct on the above, and the “campaign” is the one (or ones) who made sure McCain was the candidate, just what were they thinking? Did they actually take a look at him? Listen to him? He ain’t Dubya, folks. In fact, he may be even more dangerous, especially to the Republican party and those who follow it. Dubya does what he’s told. Will McCain? Somehow, I have this strange feeling that, if elected, McCain’s head will swell to the size of Massachusettes, and he’ll do whatever he wants, even to the extent of doing the opposite, just to “prove his point”. Sometimes those who reach a certain age feel they know it all about everything and should do as they please. McCain strikes me as the type.
“an ugly divorce“
sunflower, honey, ALL divorces are ugly, even the pretty ones. :)
Iraq invaded Kuwait, illegally.
In doing so, Iraq forfeited the rights of a sovereign nation.
Holy crap, Paul. You just provided the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
How simple! I can’t believe I missed that in all these years. Force Iraq to forfeit rights by giving Saddam a thumbs-up (quietly) to invade Kuwait, so we’ve then set up Iraq for future invasion with the perfect excuse.
That IS what you’re getting at, right, Paul?
Gee Pre-d, it is all so clear now!
And, since Georgia ‘invaded’ S Ossetia then I suppoe Bush’s soulmate concluded that they, too, had forfeited sovereignty.
McCain has pretty much proven his foreign policy incompetence with regards to Georgia. Since his foreign policy adviser was a paid lobbyist by Georgia he probably instantly got a lot of pro-Georgia nonsense without actually looking at the fact Georgia started the entire mess with Russia. But McCain had wikipedia to inform him about everything concerning Georgia.
Chechnya beat the shit out of Russia dont see why Georgia cant either, I’m surprised that Georgia hasn’t resorted to guerrilla war already, in fact the Georgian President should be trying to reinflame that conflict, and the Chechen’s also took the war to Moscow with the school massacre and bombings, something tells Georgia will too, If I was their president I would, maybe even kill the patriarch
But remember Tom – when Chechnya did that Putin’s soulmate condemned them as terrorists. An awful lot of Chechnyans were slaughtered during that fighting and, in the end, Russia prevailed. With full US support.
Franklin
Posted August 16, 2008 at 2:32 pm | Permalink
Iraq invaded Kuwait, illegally.
In doing so, Iraq forfeited the rights of a sovereign nation.
Nations that invade other nations will be punished.
________________________________________________
Paul, I’ve seen all the flak you’ve tried to puke out. Now, how about some facts.
Show me any international law that says Iraq was not a sovereign nation.
bth
Posted August 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
“… we do have some bases now, in Iraq, from which we can help in Georgia.”
Hey Paul – how’s that working out so far?
Still waiting …
“Kids born to rich parents of corporations that make their way into politics, are citizens too, duh. So yes, we have a government, for the people by the people. It just may be a little easier with people with money and connections to make their way into the politcal world. It dosne’t make it wrong though. If that’s the case, lets blame starving kids in Africa for being born to poor parents.”
Bernie, you have no idea of what’s right or wrong; you go by whatever right wing talking machine tells you. If this government is so great at this particular moment, why does it, including the white house, have an approval rating in the tens and twenties? Stupid voters? I think not.
One can love this country, while at the same time think this current administration, and congress, is basically a POS. I do my best at the voting booth, but I’m limited by the whole election process, which is grounded by who has the most money, not who is most suited for the job.
XXX,
Franklin does nothing but shout fire in a crowded theater. Getting anything intelligent out of him is a useless endeavor.
I am waiting with baited breath, for Gen. Shermanoff to get his orders from President Lincolnzky to surround and capture Atlanta… I heard one little old lady call in on the radio and announce that she had not seen any sign of army troops anywhere!!
Thy won’t take Atlanta. Instead they will set up a new government based in Milledgeville. That used to be the capital many years ago. By moving their operations further east they will lessen the perceived threat to Alabama – Bush defended Alabama from the threatened Vietnamese invasion back in the 60s, he might do so again.
Yea, I guess that would make good sense, Ben… :-D
:”in the 21st century nations don’t invade other nations.”
An obvious blunder, not unlike McClames many others.
Of the same weight as Obama stating there are 58 states (he says he has visited 57 and has one more to go to).
http://www.mahalo.com/Obama_57_States
A new reason for the war every month! Keep pitching them out and maybe one will stick to the wall.
JMWalker
Posted August 16, 2008 at 6:36 pm | Permalink
XXX,
Franklin does nothing but shout fire in a crowded theater. Getting anything intelligent out of him is a useless endeavor.
—
(Sorry, been out all day in the Atlantic Ocean, on the beach….yall have no idea how w e i r d that is to write for this here Kansas farm boy; born in 1955, raised up, and a life-long resident with minor absences, in SC Kansas until…wait, I ain’t grown up yet, damn… :wink: )
True enough, but I think the key to “Franklin” is in a quote he posted the other day, something about he “has a plan for everything he posts here.”
:lol: sorry…
I think Franklin thinks of himself as a “front line” GOP “warrior” or activist. Shouting “fire” in a crowded theatre isn’t quite accurate, imho. What’s more accurate about Franklin is “slinging mud of apparently inconsequential quality until a quantity sticks, a quantity sufficient to support whatever ideology will lead the Kansas GOP to letting Franklin back in through the dog door).
In Franklin’s mind, when the movement conservatives need a front line, gung ho, Marine kinda keyboard warrior, they go to heroes like Franklin…or that’s his plan. Achieving recognition as a kick-ass keyboard warrior just might, just might, get him back in the fold.
(He wrote not too long ago that his “services” to the Kansas GOP were…what, somehow ended tragically, as a warrior’s life might be ended tragically :roll: [my paraphrase: heads up, I own it]…. but my guess is that his “service” to the Kansas GOP was accurately perceived as the kind of screwball kiss of death we all see here, in his writing and in his “arguments,” here daily….his old nick of Econ101 still kills me… :roll: )
In short, I think this is probably the proper reaction to Franklin as a polemicist here, too: :roll:
The problem with Franklin’s premises is that according to the U.N., charter does provide that individual members may on their own enforce the U.N. Mandates and sanctions. But only with the sanction of the U.N. council which the U.S. did not have. There for under the U.N. charter the invasion was illegal and not allowed by the U.N. Charter.
“Bullying and intimidation are not acceptable ways to conduct foreign policy in the 21st century.”
I wonder of threatening to nuke a country constitutes “bullying and intimidation”?
“but my guess is that his “service” to the Kansas GOP was accurately perceived as the kind of screwball kiss of death we all see here, in his writing and in his “arguments,” here daily….his old nick of Econ101 still kills me…”
Heh, well, we all see how well he did when bon bon huy followed his advise.
Humans. When what we do doesnt work, we just do the same thing harder and faster.
I wonder how much harder and faster he can spin?
I’m willing to bet we will see in the coming weeks. And I notice, the worse things get for the GOP, the more outrageous his postings become. Maybe that is a barometer for how well his goofy ol’ party is doing?
writerdog
Your interpretation is flat wrong.
MEMBERSHIP in the United Nations is done through a treaty.
Said treaty clearly states that member states can act alone, if necessary, in self defense or in defense of UN Sanctions.
Farmgirl
I have far, far more successes than failures, as far as candidates that I have helped.
That Raj Goyle was able to claim that he would silence Fred Phelps (After Raj had worked for the ACLU, an organization that defended Phelps) simply shows that Democrats will lie and cheat to get elected.
Ben, have you not run for office, more than once, and gotten your ass kicked every time?
You libs sure are petty.
And, by the way.
I fell out with the Kansas GOP when I objected to David Miller, the State Chairman, running against Steve Abrams AND Bill Graves, for Governor.
Does anyone on the left, or the right, think that I was wrong with that advice?
#
Franklin
Posted August 17, 2008 at 11:45 am | Permalink
writerdog
Your interpretation is flat wrong.
MEMBERSHIP in the United Nations is done through a treaty.
Said treaty clearly states that member states can act alone, if necessary, in self defense or in defense of UN Sanctions.
======================================================
You still ain’t answered XXX’s question.
JM
You might not be bright enough to understand my answer, but the answer stands:
Under the definition of the word “sovereign” itself, Iraq did NOT have full power over its borders or its affairs.
It is very simple liberals. You have two, and only two choices:
1.) Support “total war” scorched Earth tactics, to the total destruction of your enemy, in every combat.
Or
2.) Allow something short of “total war” — such as cease fire agreements, truces, and the like, where a defeated country gives up some sovereignty, in exchange for avoiding total annihilation.
You “peace lovers” and anti war nuts need to understand something:
IF you allow peace treaties, cease fires, truces and other peace making tools to be disrespected or gutted, then you are, actually, supporting TOTAL WAR!
Why would any country allow anything less than “unconditional surrender” — if you liberals make it clear that agreements that fall short of complete victory will not be honored?
Your ideology makes war more deadly.
Nobody trusts liberals to enforce the rules, so the enemy must be completely destroyed.
Franklin
Posted August 17, 2008 at 12:09 pm | Permalink
JM
You might not be bright enough to understand my answer, but the answer stands:
Under the definition of the word “sovereign” itself, Iraq did NOT have full power over its borders or its affairs.
It is very simple liberals. You have two, and only. . . yadda, yadda, yadda. . . .
====================================================
Nope, still no answer.
“Show me any international law that says Iraq was not a sovereign nation.”
JM
“laws” contain words.
“words” have definitions.
I showed you the DEFINITION of the words in the law.
YOU LOST!
Suck it up and talk about something else. I am done with this one. I don’t like kicking people when they are down, not even you.
UN Charter
“Article 51
Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security. Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
—–
The United States was not required to ask for “permission” in the case of Iraq.
However, the United States HAD such permission, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Such permission continued, as recognized by the cease fire agreement that Iraq signed with the United States.
Iraq, an non-sovereign nation, due to Iraq’s violation of international law, was then punished for violating a cease fire agreement negotiated after an Act of Congress and the United Nations authorized the use of force, in the first place, and after the United States Congress, REAUTHORIZED force, once again, after Iraq violated terms of the cease fire.
The United States was not required to ask for “permission” in the case of Iraq.
However, the United States HAD such permission, when Iraq invaded Kuwait.
Such permission continued, as recognized by the cease fire agreement that Iraq signed with the United States.
Iraq, an non-sovereign nation, due to Iraq’s violation . . . more yadda, yadda . . . ad infinitum . . .
=======================================================
Still nope.
“Nobody trusts liberals to enforce the rules, so the enemy must be completely destroyed.”
Which is what soulmate Putin is doing to his enemy.
bth
Posted August 16, 2008 at 6:05 pm | Permalink
bth
Posted August 16, 2008 at 2:45 pm | Permalink
“… we do have some bases now, in Iraq, from which we can help in Georgia.”
Hey Paul – how’s that working out so far?
Still waiting …
“Suck it up and talk about something else. I am done with this one.”
Yea Paul, because you lost. Just as Bush’s soulmate won.
“Ben, have you not run for office, more than once, and gotten your ass kicked every time?
You libs sure are petty.”
Yes, Paul, I ran an honorable campaign against Les Donovan in 1994. As I recall I ‘beat the spread’ – that is I outpolled other Democrats in my heavily Republican district. Les and I ran a straight-up and open campaign – both of us. I remember joking with Les at the Church where we both voted that he and I were both ‘politicking’ at the pools – since he and I were talking to each other. And yes, as expected Les won handily.
However, there were those on YOUR side who didn’t want a clean campaign. Godarchy started a stealth campaign against me claiming that I was running on the “gay rights agende bacause I was closet gay”. That came as quite a shock to my teen-aged son and my wife – and to Les and HIS wife who happen to be in our Parish. The fact that self-described “Christians” would stoop to such lies is indicative of just how ‘petty’ YOU and YOURS are. Of course, such tactics are part and parcel of your style; isn’t it Paul?
Ben
It is you, and yours, not I, that uses the word “magic underwear” to describe the Mormon clothing of Mitt Romney.
It is you that once attacked any Republican who criticized John McCain.
You are now one of McCain’s harshest critics.
Hey, I was not poking fun at you for not winning.
Most successful people, in politics, have lost at least one race. That is often how we learn.
However, the fact that ONE of the people that I supported, nearly 2 years ago, did NOT win seems to come up every week, on this Blog.
Amazing!
Paul – you are correct that I respond in kind whenever I see “Osama Obama” and similar things. “Swift-boating” of any kind WILL be responded to. My experience with Godarchy back in 1994 taught me that.
“Hey, I was not poking fun at you for not winning”
Yea, and I have a bridge for sale …
Ted Kennedy was the first politician to call Obama “Osama” I believe.
Since then, I think Dan Rather did the same thing.
I guess you have NO standards, huh Ben?
If you hear something offensive or flat our wrong, you could come up with a substantive complaint against the candidate you do not support, and you could put the other party on the spot for not telling the truth. That is, if you can prove that point.
Instead, Ben, you tend to resort to cheap insults and attacks as much as the rest of the libs.
McCain made an honest mistake.
All those other countries are countries.
We’re the chosen people of God, the city on the hill.
We don’t have to obey the rules we force on other people.
:roll:
Hey, Franklin?
Which RepubliCON are you going to help lose to Raj Goyle this time?
I am helping 3 people.
All did very well in the primary.
Have not met Goyles opponent yet, thanks for asking.
Goyle isn’t going any further, I am not too worried about him anymore.
Goyle is a radical leftist and can be ignored.
You wish he could be ignored.
IIRC, the Kansas House only needed one more vote to override the Governor’s veto on the Holcomb plant expansion.
If Bonnie Huy had been there, the override would have passed.
Unfortunately for your side, Raj Goyle was there instead to stop the proposed biggest single producer of CO2 in the United States.
“Ted Kennedy was the first politician to call Obama “Osama” I believe.
Since then, I think Dan Rather did the same thing.”
As I understand it Kennedy’s stupid gaffe was a slip of the tongue. Don’t know about Rather. But when I see it written here by your standardless side it is clearly deliberate. So, it is YOU with no standards. Same goes with “Hildebeast” which seems tobe another favorite with your ide.
Like I said – after my experiences with your godarchy friends in 1994 and seeing the 2004 presidential campaign such attacks will be responded to. And, with that smear book out against Obama you should expect recirpocity.
Tell us again Paul – how are all those bases in Iraq helping us drive Russia out of Georgia and the breakaway regions. My prediction stands – Russia will stay in the regions and probably also a ‘buffer’ in Georgia – AFTER they finish destroying the Georgia military infrastructure. And the US will do nothing. I would not be surprised to see regime change.
McCain can sing ‘bomb Russia’ all he wants in his attempts at “Bullying and intimidation” but to no avail. Just like his singing ‘bomb Iran’ has done nothng.
Nations don’t invade nations in the 21 century. And, this guy is running on being a foreign policy expert!?
Looks like my prediction is playing out, the Olympics outlasting the invasion. Russia’s made their point, it’ll be a long time before Georgia challenges them again. Unless mcnut mccain is elected.
Boy! Pall is wiggling harder than old Elvis, trying to justify McCain’s words with Bush’s actions. Sorry Pall, but trying to redefine the word “nation” in your own favor just doesn’t cut it. This war will go down in history as the worst mistake our country ever made!
According to Franklins logic, Russia has forfeited their designation as a soverign state.
Don’t encourage him. Next thing you know he will be singing “Bomb bomb bomb Russia” with the rest of the McLame Loonies. He’ll even tell us again how all those bases in Iraq make it so easy – we can just take out Russia with a fly-by while we are bombing Iran. After all, Iran ahs also forfeited their designation as a sovereign state.
it might turn into something truly fun!!!