Which one's got the corner on political realism and responsible leadership?
I haven't figured it out yet, but I'm working on it.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
"As much as I hate to say it, I know beyond a doubt that the next weeks are going to be nasty. He’s leading, and there are people who simply cannot stomach the idea of his beautiful family living in the White House. There will be smears, all sorts of slander and lies, the likes of which you’ve probably rarely seen. So y’all, we got to pray for this man. And please . . . make sure you VOTE!" (Miryam Ehrlich Williamson)
Pundit of the Month
The (Evolving!) Rules
This is an experiment. Contributors are invited to post brief current items of their own interest. Items will be edited to ensure brevity, taste, interest, etc. Read More.
Blog Archive
-
▼
2008
(110)
-
▼
August
(24)
- Oh - There's Something About Those Old-Time Republ...
- McCain's Vice-Presidential Selection Was Predicted!
- It Woulda Coulda Shoulda Been
- It's
- Will the real terrorists stop?
- At what cost...?
- A Hand to Iraq from Iran
- Uh...?
- Another Cost of Bush's Iraq War
- I was thinking more along these lines...
- Joe Lieberman a Real Prick
- Get to know a Sociopath!
- MSM Busted!
- Rethuglican Stew! Guaranteed Emetic!
- Weekend Homework Reading Assignment
- In the 21st Century, Nations Do Not Invade Other N...
- Alcohol?
- Russia's Putin vs. Georgia's Saakashvili
- I can dream, can't I?
- Dana Milbank Gets Purged!
- Bimbo-Gate
- Rating the World's Most Evil
- R.I.P. Bruce E. ! You, too, John McCain!
- Celluloid Memories of Eight Wonderful Years
-
▼
August
(24)
Contributors
Other Messengers
7 comments:
I'll go first, I guess. (I'm never reticent when it comes to offering my unsolicited, inexpert opinions.)
I've always used a rule of thumb when trying to understand wars in general (maybe not all wars).
Wars are about resolving different and opposing perceptions of reality. In this case the opposing perceptions are
Georgia is an independent nation-state of which Abkhazia and South Ossetia are a part
vs.
Georgia is an independent state of which Abkhazia and South Ossetia are not a part.
I think, based upon the fragmentary geopolitical info Messenger presents, that the answer is apparent to the casual and uncommitted observer.
Moscow is demanding regime change in Tbilisi. That seems to change the stakes: maybe the differing versions of reality is whether Georgia, itself, is independent or on its way to reverting to a satellite state.
McCain Camp: Obama "Bizarrely In Sync With Moscow". Demagoguery.
In the WSJ, Mikheil Saakashvili asks What is at stake in this war?
Most obviously, the future of my country is at stake. The people of Georgia have spoken with a loud and clear voice: They see their future in Europe. Georgia is an ancient European nation, tied to Europe by culture, civilization and values. In January, three in four Georgians voted in a referendum to support membership in NATO. These aims are not negotiable; now, we are paying the price for our democratic ambitions.
Second, Russia's future is at stake. Can a Russia that wages aggressive war on its neighbors be a partner for Europe? It is clear that Russia's current leadership is bent on restoring a neocolonial form of control over the entire space once governed by Moscow.
If Georgia falls, this will also mean the fall of the West in the entire former Soviet Union and beyond. Leaders in neighboring states -- whether in Ukraine, in other Caucasian states or in Central Asia -- will have to consider whether the price of freedom and independence is indeed too high.
Read his entire statement.
Georgia's independence cannot be a war for the west because the USA has already sunk its military assets into Iraq, and NATO's into Afghanistan. Saakashvili has over-bid his hand. Bush and Cheney and McCain already think were in one world war. How many simultaneous world wars can be expected of us?
Good question.
Great question, boris, and great response Anvendelig. They all seem to delight in war. Why? George Carlin knew (forgive me my column inches, messenger):
I also look at war itself a little differently from most. I see it largely as an exercise in dick-waving. That's really all it is: alot of men standing around in a field waving their dicks at one another. Men, insecure about the size of their penises, choose to kill one another.
That's also what all that moron athlete bullshit is all about, and what that macho, male posturing and strutting around in bars and locker rooms
represents. It's called 'dick fear.' Men are terrified that their dicks are inadequate, and so they have to 'compete' in order to feel better about themselves. And since war is the ultimate competition, essentially men are killing one another in order to improve their genital self-esteem.
Whatever Carlin said.
Post a Comment