jh Wrote:

Hambone10 Wrote:If you read McCain's quote, you can CLEARLY see that he is saying...

Invasion of another country is wrong.

We will learn over the next few days if the invasion was warranted/provoked (obviously implying that there are times when being "wrong" is the right thing to do)

Warranted or not, we urge restraint... especially in that the Turks and Kurds are probably watching pretty closely.

WTF is wrong with that?? How is that inconsistent with US policy in Iraq? Just because some don't think, agree or realize that our "invasion" of Iraq was warranted, doesn't mean that it wasn't. McCain is CLEARLY allowing for the fact that Russias actions may have been provoked/warranted... though there don't appear to be any of the UN resolutions and findings to support the claim of ethnic cleansing and soveriegnty of Ossetia that existed in re Iraq, and were part of their excuse for NOT wanting to invade Iraq.

Talk about moral relativism.

I'm not quite sure where you are coming from here. I've already said that I didn't think this quote was a big deal, although I do believe that he made an incorrect statement, or at least a clumsily worded one. I believe that an invasion is either right or wrong, justified or not. I don't believe that being "wrong" is ever the right thing to do & I don't agree that you can condem a nation for an invasion if you don't already know they are not justified (which he may well have strongly believed but did not want to say yet).

Hambone10, you believe the invasion of Iraq was warranted. Do you believe that it was wrong? I just don't see how those two positions can coexist.

I've also not offered up any real defense of the Russian invasion. I have mentioned that I thought Georgia was the first to break the terms of the ceasefire, which might be incorrect. As additional information emerges, I'm more & more convinced that Russia is primarily at fault, though I remain convinced that the Georgian president did a terrible job at reading & understanding the situation & though he could get away with it.

The thing that I find most intersting in this entire situation is the status of South Ossetia. I'm sticking up for the little guy, not defending the bully.

I think I included you in the reply because I wanted to include your response to peruna... I don't think I meant YOU as you... I meant... ONE... but wanted to include your part of the conversation about Tiawan...

As to your right/wrong statement... much like McCain's statement... everything needs qualifications, and there simply isn't enough time to give all of the potential qualifications... to envision and address all of the possibilities... Is abortion wrong?? I think even many supporters of abortion rights (like me) generally view it as wrong... but there are times when it is the right thing to do... (among the more generally accepted excuses, rape/health). I'll make it even MORE confusing by putting it in a political context. I believe abortion is wrong. I do not "support it". I believe that abortion is sometimes necessary, and thus will not outlaw it. As a woman's body is her own, I fully support her right to generally do as she sees fit... UNTIL those decisions require me to do something. If a church/group wants to fund abortions, then fine. If someone wants the public to fund it for them, then they have invited the government into their bedroom... and they will be subject to scrutiny... meaning a condom, pill or IUD is cheaper than most abortions. If you're asking the government to pay for the results of your sex life, then we (the people) get to insist that you take simple steps to limit the cost to us of your sex life. If you don't invite us into your bedroom, then we have no business being in it... but if you do, we have a right to make reasonable demands.

So yes... I believe that in general, invading a soveriegn country is wrong... HOWEVER... I believe there are times when it is warranted. I believe that "Invasion" is potentially warranted to enforce treaties... otherwise, what is the point of the treaty? So yes, I believe that invading countries is wrong... but that our invasion of Iraq was justified. McCain is allowing Russia that same wiggle room, though unlike Iraq, Georgia didn't invade a neighbour and negotiate a peace treaty that had requirements that they had failed to live up to for more than a decade with dozens of UN resolutions insisting on compliance... which they also failed to comply with... so the justification (if it exists) isn't that obvious to someone like me who last seriously studied Russia and its ethnic groups when it was called the Soviet Union.

I believe that McCain (and MOST military leaders) believe as I do, that war (invasion) is wrong... but is sometimes a necessary evil. This is the biggest difference between people like John McCain and MOST politicians. John McCain has experienced firsthand how "the enemy" views what we consider to be healthy debate over things like the morality of war. In parts of Islam, war IS COMPLETELY moral. So they view our debates as signs of weakness to be exploited. Men like OBL and Ahmenadjin (sp?) even Putin have certainly learned to use it against us. It will be our downfall that we continue to think that the world generally believes as we do, or will react as we do. In many cultures, particularly in the middle and far east... the "goal" of life is completely different from ours... so the reactions will be different.

I think most of our disagreement, along with my disagreement with McCain's quote, is mostly a simple matter of semantics, which is why I can't get too worked up over it. It's not that I disagree with his sentiment, just how he expressed it. I would draw a distinction between good & bad and right & wrong and not apply the label wrong to a situation if it is justified.

I would agree that things like invading a soveriegn nation & abortion are always bad. It is always better if these things are not required. But just because they are bad does not necessarily make them wrong. If a woman needs an abortion in order to save her life, it is still a bad thing. It would be better if her life was not in danger and the abortion could be avoided. I don't think, however, that in this case it is in any way wrong for a woman to have an abortion. Invading a soveriegn nation is similar. While it is always a bad thing (because it's better if the situation can be resolved without bloodshed), if it is legitimately justified I would not consider it wrong.

Of course, I'm also a moral relativist & think everyone else is as well.

Brookes Owl Wrote:Glenn Greenwald, Salon.com

Condi's quote ....

[George Carlin]
That's stunningly.... and embarrisingly.... full of s***
[/George Carlin]

Artifice Wrote:too much bull**** to refute in a single post

I don't know what to say except to list bullet points of errors in what you've said:

• The United States did not use military means as its first resort in either Afghanistan or Iraq
• Rice's statement is entirely defensible with regards to the first resort being military force
• Georgia did not start a war with Russia in any sense - Russia is interfering in the internal affairs of Georgia
• Gratuitous mention of Israel really has no bearing on this when Israel was invaded by Hezbollah and its soldiers were killed and kidnapped (note this was not disputed territory in any but the minds of Islamists that don't recognize Israel as a nation)
  

You have a valid point regarding "Presidential Initiation Right".

You have an interesting discussion vis-a-vis Joseph Biden. He is someone that I regard pretty highly and trust, even though I often disagree with him. He had a pretty good shot at the presidency 20 years ago or so, but his campaign unraveled after plagiary allegations. You have to wonder if that is behind him or if it will crop up again - I believe that the incident was pretty minor and should no longer be an issue.

But, to the larger point, Russia has and had plenty of alternatives to invading their neighbor and continuing their interference in their neighbor's affairs. They chose the one that best furthered their interests (not the Ossetians).

In South Ossetia, there were no sanctions, ultimatums, blockades, diplomatic advances, international initiatives (NATO, UN, etc) ... nothing. Those are staples of every incident that you mentioned. The US would not have invaded Afghanistan if the Taliban had handed over Ossama bin Laden. The US would not have invaded Iraq if Sadaam had left the country or if they had not violated their obligations for 10+ years and running.

I guess what you want out of the US Administration is complete indifference to any conflict anywhere in the world, whether or not it involves US interests.

jh Wrote:I think most of our disagreement, along with my disagreement with McCain's quote, is mostly a simple matter of semantics, which is why I can't get too worked up over it. It's not that I disagree with his sentiment, just how he expressed it. I would draw a distinction between good & bad and right & wrong and not apply the label wrong to a situation if it is justified.

I would agree that things like invading a soveriegn nation & abortion are always bad. It is always better if these things are not required. But just because they are bad does not necessarily make them wrong. If a woman needs an abortion in order to save her life, it is still a bad thing. It would be better if her life was not in danger and the abortion could be avoided. I don't think, however, that in this case it is in any way wrong for a woman to have an abortion. Invading a soveriegn nation is similar. While it is always a bad thing (because it's better if the situation can be resolved without bloodshed), if it is legitimately justified I would not consider it wrong.

Of course, I'm also a moral relativist & think everyone else is as well.

The dangers of quickly written impersonal e-conversations.

As to Condi's comments... and the Salon Article...

Some people just like to argue...

Press: What are we doing about Iran's nuclear ambitions?
Condi: we intend to send a clear message that they need to stop
Press: so we're going to attack pre-emptively?
Condi: that is not what i am saying
Press: So we are NOT going to attack
Condi: I didn't say that either
Press: but would you rule it out?
Condi: (frustrated by the ignorant questions) I would not rule anything out, but let me be perfectly clear that it is not currently even on the table for discussion. We are exploring our diplomatic options and have a long way to go before we even consider that.

Headline: "Condi can't rule out a pre-emptive strike"
Story: A clearly frustrated Condi told the press today that a pre-emptive strike against Iran's Nuclear facilities was an option she "would not rule out". When asked about the diplomatic options, she responded "We have a long way to go" and "we intend to send a clear message". Oil prices surged $4 today

(failing to state that it is the two MAY be unrelated as the rise in prices was preceded by a 3 day fall in prices, and we were already up $3.75 before the story broke)

Did I lie in my retelling of the story? Did I mistate anything? Or did I simply edit??

No, I don't believe that the press necessarily intentionally lies... but I believe that they are in the business of selling paper and/or time... and the story above will sell much better than the story at the top.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with Condi's quote... unless you think that we invaded Afghanistan or Iraq without provocation. I'm not saying you have to agree the provocation was sufficient for YOU... but allowing unfettered inspections was a term of the cease fire after their invasion of Kuwait... and a clear consequence of violating the cease fire was a resumption of hostilities. There are UN resolutions against Sudan dating back for years.

Is there a similar cease fire in Poland or Georgia with Russia?? Did Poland or Georgia, or someone they harbor just bomb territorial Russia?? Has Russia filed complaints of ethnic cleansing with the UN in re Georgia??

Stop believing the press, people... The US is NOT the world's bad guy.

I45Owl -

#1 - Brookesowl did the favor of linking the source. Thanks Brookes. Those are not my words.
#2 - Neither Condi nor McCain were splitting hairs about first or second or third responses. Let's be honest for a change and not invent weak distinctions to protect them. It's disingenuous.
#3 - The issue of who provoked who has already been beaten up on here. It also is not relevent.
#4 - I think you missed the point. Being a hawk isn't a strength for Biden. It's one of his biggest failings, and the Dems capitulation to playground level peer pressure from the Pubs to wag their dicks and puff out their chests in a show of machismo is utter FAIL.
#5 - Condi and McCain are full of ****. My favorite part of that piece is:

Quote:That's why it's so amazing to watch Condoleezza Rice, more or less without contradiction, say things like this:

Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century.

Other than our media elite, is there anyone who doesn't recognize how absurd it is for Rice to be issuing a sermon like that? Who is the target audience for that? And what does it say about our political discourse that Rice knows she can say things like that with a straight face -- and, before her, that John McCain can do much the same -- without its being pointed out how darkly laughable it is?

It's a very insightful piece. Really encapsulates an example of my disillusionment with the two headed single party that runs our contry.

Artifice Wrote:I45Owl -

#1 - Brookesowl did the favor of linking the source. Thanks Brookes. Those are not my words.
#2 - Neither Condi nor McCain were splitting hairs about first or second or third responses. Let's be honest for a change and not invent weak distinctions to protect them. It's disingenuous.
#3 - The issue of who provoked who has already been beaten up on here. It also is not relevent.
#4 - I think you missed the point. Being a hawk isn't a strength for Biden. It's one of his biggest failings, and the Dems capitulation to playground level peer pressure from the Pubs to wag their dicks and puff out their chests in a show of machismo is utter FAIL.
#5 - Condi and McCain are full of ****. My favorite part of that piece is:

Quote:That's why it's so amazing to watch Condoleezza Rice, more or less without contradiction, say things like this:

Russia is a state that is unfortunately using the one tool that it has always used whenever it wishes to deliver a message and that's its military power. That's not the way to deal in the 21st century.

Other than our media elite, is there anyone who doesn't recognize how absurd it is for Rice to be issuing a sermon like that? Who is the target audience for that? And what does it say about our political discourse that Rice knows she can say things like that with a straight face -- and, before her, that John McCain can do much the same -- without its being pointed out how darkly laughable it is?

It's a very insightful piece. Really encapsulates an example of my disillusionment with the two headed single party that runs our contry.

#1) Brookes is an Owl. Owls rock...
#2) Do you REALLY think that Condi Rice or McCain would chastise a country for using its military when necessary? Do you believe that Condi and the administration do not believe that they exhausted their diplomatic options before invading Iraq? I'm not saying YOU think they exhausted their options... but do you think they believe that THEY did?? Do you believe that John McCain would shoot first and negotiate later as President? If not, then YOU are the one being disingenuous. If so, then you need to get out more.
#3) It is ABSOLUTELY relevent... We would not have invaded Afghanistan if they hadn't harbored Bin Laden. We would not have invaded Iraq if they hadn't invaded Kuwait. Don't believe that?? Then WHY haven't we invaded Iran or North Korea yet? Those actions are not sufficiently justified... these actions are... You may not agree with the points, but i certainly hope that there is SOME point at which you would be willing to authorize military action... and I suspect that it begins with provocation.
#4) I don't know what you're responding to... but I'd state it differently. Have you ever seen (or been) either the smallest guy in a group with the biggest friends or the biggest guy in a group with the smallest friends?? The small guys are frequently acting tougher than they are because they know the big guy has their back. Unfortunately, this frequently puts the big guy in positions he didn't choose to be in and he gets a reputation as a bully. If he doesn't get tired of the small guy making him fight all the time, the small guys buddies will eventually make him turn on the big guy as a bully and shun him, or try and handicap him. In either event, the big guy, who has done nothing other than what his supposed friend asked him to do... is the bad guy... and the little guy, who abused his friend's loyalty and turned on him without provocation... is somehow the good guy. The BIG guy in this parable is the US military... and the small guy is most people in Congress who haven't served in a combat unit.

The problem is not the military or its leaders... The problem is Congress... who expect them to fight a war in the middle of town, but not kill civilians... To be the meanest SOBs on the earth, but not to ever lose their temper. To be able to run 10 miles in a short period of time carrying a 50 pound backpack, but not need special shoes.

#5) Only the disingenuous (see #2) would make comments like that, or support them.

If you don't see the difference between Iraq and Georgia, then you shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy equipment... seriously...

As oposed to being enlightening, it only convinces me that a decent portion of the electorate don't have any business voting... even some I'd consider fairly intelligent. They either truly don't get it, or they are so interested in "winning" that they are willing to sacrifice every principle I hold dear to do so, regardless of the consequences.

When the facts don't support you, argue the presentation??

Do you believe that what the Russians have done is right?? If not, WHY not. Do you believe what we have done in Iraq and Afghanistan is right? If not, WHY not?

Hambone10 Wrote:If you don't see the difference between Iraq and Georgia, then you shouldn't be allowed to operate heavy equipment... seriously...

add Obama to the dunce list that parroted this absurd argument the other day.

John Hinderaker summed it up pretty well:

Quote:So our "charging into" Iraq--with dozens of allies, supported by a U.N. resolution, as a last resort after six months of build-up and negotiations, to unseat one of the cruelest dictators of modern times who had twice invaded neighboring states, was in violation of more than a dozen U.N. resolutions and was responsible for the deaths of something like two million people, who was shooting at American aircraft and had tried to assassinate a former President of the United States, in Obama's childish mind, was just like Russia's "charging into" Georgia, which resembles Saddam's Iraq in no respect. And, of course, we invaded a horrifying charnel-house so as to establish a democracy, whereas Russia invaded a peaceful democracy that it wants to re-incorporate into its empire.

Is Obama an idiot? I don't think so, really. But one of the many problems with being a leftist is that it leads you to say lots of stupid things. Today, the Obama gaffe machine went into overdrive. By November, I suspect that most voters will have heard enough to know that Barack Obama is unqualified to be a middle-manager in a well-run company, let alone President of the United States.

How many UN Resolutions did Georgia have against them anyway? How many nations in Russia's Coalition here? How many terrorist is the Georgian Govt. harboring and financing? meanwhile Saddam did in fact invade an innoncent nation for Empire, like Russia is currently doing.

relativism, its a mental disease.

As CS Lewis said: "Relativism will certainly damn our souls and end our species." Leftist continue to try and make him a prophet on the latter point, and showing just how that is done.

BleedsHuskieRed Wrote:http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2008/0...-invasion/

“In the 21st century, nations don’t invade other nations.” John McCain.

Simply stunning John.

HA!...that's all i have to that...i'm quite amused right now!