Thoughts after Russia's recognition

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Even if China was all for Russia's actions in Georgia, do you think she'll jeopardize her relationships with the West by publicly showing a huge vote of support, thus drawing all the spears towards her?

It doesn't look like Russia is going to get what they wanted from China. Before I went to bed last night, many news outlets were jumping the gun saying Medvedev is reporting such support from China. I've read everything from this meeting and it was tepid at best. And showed a more neutral stance for peace and security in the region. It was also very non-specific. But one thing is clear, it showed no actual support for Russia's position at all. Why? Because like I said before. If China begins to recognize break-away states in the Caucuses, that screws up their position with Taiwan, Tibet, etc.

And you make a good point here KS. This will bring unwanted hostilities to China if they were to misalign themselves by backing Russia here in totality. I don't think china's willing to do it for that reason as well.

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator.

No.....Mr. Putin is no dictator. No...not at all. He's only set himself up to remain in power as Prime Minister and has moved to shift powers he once held as President, to the Prime Minister's office. But no, He's no dictator. And we just love how those people who seem to oppose Mr. Putin seem to be on the receiving end of a nice little poison pill. Yeah, Xabba....great guy.

On other fronts, Skybird has made no good points at all. He has positioned Russia in a advantageous role, where none exists for Russia here. Russia has stupidly made things come to pass for themselves that they desperately did not want. And there's more to come. They have over-estimated the support they would get from China, not being able to see the realities there. And yet they continue. If they're looking at the long term through their current actions, then Russia has very stupid leadership. They're digging themselves into a big hole, and yet getting nothing for it. Even today one of the so called break-aways have said they won't be a part of Russia. I don't think Russia is thinking at all.....they're posturing. And theyre not getting any positive results from it. They're simply making enemies and putting themselves into a position of total isolation.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by XabbaRus

Hogwash...This hasn't been brought about by Russia all by itself.

I admit the Russian govt. has screwed up diplomatically and should have done its job and pulled back its troops into Southern Ossetia straight away. Put it didn't.

However all the handwringing in Europe and the US about Russia breaking international law, but paid no attention to the Russian government objections over Kosova which have been pointed out earlier in this thread is what annoys me. Taking everything that Sakashvilli says at face value.

As an editorial in the FT I read yesterday wrote "What is sauce for the Kosovo gander is also sauce for the Ossetian Goose". The FT being one of the few newspapers I consider to be objective in its reporting and analysis.

You really must be paranoid to think the Russia or its government wants to charge into former republics like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Either that or you think Medvedev and Putin are thick. Russia might like the Crimea back but to think they would risk a full blow war over it. Like Sky says Russia takes the long view. Ukraine has elections soon, Yushenko is unpopular and half of Ukraine is ethnic Russian.

Skybird has made good points here and fairly analysed them and dissected them. All you seem to be able to do is just regurgitate the same speil that is deep rooted in your dislike for Russia and Russians. Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator. Have you been to Russia recently? I have and hey I didn't see any sign of a dictatorship, didn't see anyone walking in fear or people afraid to talk about events or criticise the Kremlin. I'm sure you'll point out the Kremlin squashing certain newspapers and TV stations, but you think the Russians just get info by that. There are plenty of Russian publications available via the net and other sources, and I have not seen any move to have them shut down, no web filtering a la China.

Putin meanwhile has accused the US to have intended the outbreak of violence for purpose of helping one of the US candidates.

http://www.cnn.com/2008/WORLD/europe...war/index.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7586605.stm


there are several points that prevent this being wiped off the table too easily.

1. there is at least one case that could work as a precedent. during the Iran-hostage crisis, Republicans had established a secret deal with Iran to not free the hostages before the elections had been held and Reagun won against Carter. that way, Carter was prevented from taking advantage of the PR success of being the one politician who brought home america'S hostages. reagan was celebrated for having freed the hostages, while Carters months of work were minimised, and his role ridiculed. He got betrayed by the Republican party by use of dirty tricks that went at the cost of those american hostages who could have been freed much earlier.

2. Rice is reported to have send contradciting signals, saying she had warned Georgia's Uber-Trottel Saakashvilli of using force, but obviously the warnings fell on deaf ears - if internally such warnings ever were given for sure. It would not be the first time that a female diplomat sends contradicting signals to a foreign regime (remember Hussein 1990). If that was intentional, or not, we will never be allowed to know.

3. As a matter of fact, there have been and there are american troops present in Georgia, before the war there were 150 advisors and around 1000 combat troops joining in maneuvres with Georgian troops - who after the maneuver did not move back into their barracks, but immediately from the maneuver ground relocated to their attack positions from which they launched their assault just weeks later. Same was true for Russian troops conducting exercises at the same time - they too did not return home but relocated into psoitions from which they could reach the peacekeeopers in the province quickly. As the following chronic argues, there is no reason how anyone oin europe could have gooten surprised by the outbreak of war. That so many were surprised indeed shows the widespread dilletantism of today's spectacular and competent political leaders.
They SHOULD have seen it coming, really.

On July 15, an unprecedented show of military strength began on both sides of the main ridge of the Great Caucasus Range. In the south, not far from Tbilisi, close to 1,000 Americans joined the Fourth Infantry Brigade of the Georgian army in a maneuver called "Immediate Response 2008." (...) Following the military exercise on the Georgian side, President Saakashvili -- directly under the noses of the American military advisors -- sent parts of his army toward South Ossetia instead of ordering them to return to their barracks. The artillery brigade, for example, which would begin firing on the South Ossetian capital Tskhinvali eight days later, on Aug. 7, is normally divided between two towns, Senaki and Gori. But after July 30, the brigade was concentrated in Gori.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...574812,00.html

4. Fact is that Washington wants to advance into Russia's Caucasean backyard at all cost, no matter how, to create a breach from where to bring even more pressure onto Russian interests and options, to cover geostrategic interests and pipelines in the region, and pushing the Russians even more against the wall by making NATO standing at their borders in the Caucasean region as well. Saakashvilli for this is just a tool. America claims worldwide validity of American ideas - and this brutal arrogance is the real problem here, and is the real motor behind NATO's aggressive expansionism.

In this conflict, america is as much concerned about democracy and freedom for Georgia, as is Russia really interested in the fate of the South Ossetians. Both these reasons given are just salvos in the propaganda war. That'S why the US is lining up with such a hysteric idiot like Saakashvilli who is everything but a democratic or competent ruler, and that is why the Kremlin so stubbornly defends it's stand in the region against American demands to claim it for the West, which means nothing else than: for American influence. "Democracy", and "independence for supressed Ossetians" in the end have nothing to do with both nation's true interests. Only hopeless idealists and determined nationalists, who uncritically embrace everything their countries say and do, can seriously believe these popular fairy-tales.

Intelligence operations - their major duty is not to guard against the enemy, but to deceive the own public, and hindering it to know what it should not know, without letting the public ever realise that it got manipulated into believing what it should believe.

[Happy Times]

Hogwash...This hasn't been brought about by Russia all by itself.

I admit the Russian govt. has screwed up diplomatically and should have done its job and pulled back its troops into Southern Ossetia straight away. Put it didn't.

However all the handwringing in Europe and the US about Russia breaking international law, but paid no attention to the Russian government objections over Kosova which have been pointed out earlier in this thread is what annoys me. Taking everything that Sakashvilli says at face value.

This thing has been cooking a little longer than the invasion of Georgia. Last year were the riots and attacks against Estonia etc.. FSBs agents have been busy bees for a long time.

You really must be paranoid to think the Russia or its government wants to charge into former republics like Ukraine or the Baltic states. Either that or you think Medvedev and Putin are thick. Russia might like the Crimea back but to think they would risk a full blow war over it. Like Sky says Russia takes the long view. Ukraine has elections soon, Yushenko is unpopular and half of Ukraine is ethnic Russian.

They are thick, thats evident allready. They have now shown that when FSB cant deliver, the Army goes in. Yet they failed with that also, as Shakavili is still in power, im sure Vladimir is biting his nails.

Skybird has made good points here and fairly analysed them and dissected them.

Skybird is very intelligent and i respect him, but that doesnt meen he couldnt be partially or totally wrong. In an earlier thread he explained his vision of the future.

"Currently, russian investements are buying off Western corporation shares like crazy, with incredible sums of money. Only the Gulf states and china surpass them. They seem to follow the same tactic like the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia: biting off a big enough share of western industry to have a word in its control and in the future, when they run thin on oil and gas (we are talking 20, 30 years btw), they will shave off the cream from industrial profits they make with ex-western companies that are not so exclusively western-owned, then. Then WE will work for THEM, and for the Arabs. Serves us right, stupidly bragging as we do."

"So let's see who will grin wider in the end. I don't bet my money on the West. We need them more than they need us - and that is a bad start to begin a match with."

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/show...=141010&page=2

This is something i am positive will never happen. EU and US will not let it happen and contrary to Skys belief, they dont have to. So we disagree, not much to argue after that is established.

All you seem to be able to do is just regurgitate the same speil that is deep rooted in your dislike for Russia and Russians

And accusing me of racism and fasicm is getting old, i am neither and i hope people start to back these claims up with proof.

Putin is no Hitler, and I wouldn't call him a dictator. Have you been to Russia recently? I have and hey I didn't see any sign of a dictatorship, didn't see anyone walking in fear or people afraid to talk about events or criticise the Kremlin. I'm sure you'll point out the Kremlin squashing certain newspapers and TV stations, but you think the Russians just get info by that. There are plenty of Russian publications available via the net and other sources, and I have not seen any move to have them shut down, no web filtering a la China.

Ive never heard that Third Reich was a bad place for Nazis either.
In a modern world its hard to have exatcly the same kind of dictatorship as you had in the 40s. Critisising Kremlin privatly isnt a threat to them, but im sure it will stop many careers and opportunities. A threat it becomes when one tries to get this message out through politics or dissidency. Political rights and civil liberties are almost gone in Russia and the trend isnt up. You must know that the free media you claim is plenty, doesnt reach practically anyone in Russia, hence it isnt a threat.

[Happy Times]

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

I cant believe Skybird that you would suggest this is part of McCains campaign?

There have been many scandals in america'S political games, but the more serious and dirty tricks have been played by Republicans. The Iran hostage story. Watergate. Oliver North and the Contras. Iraq.

There is nothing I do not think they are capable of. Politics is a dirty business, cynism and lies are considered to be good tone. The glorious speeches are just for the crowd. Never trust them.

Panem et circensis.

Regarding Putin'S accusation - as I said, if he is right, then we will not be allowed to know. And if he is wrong, we will not know either. He has interferred with the US elections before in 2004, claiming he had evidence for Irqi nukes. that way he helped Bush being elected.

[August]

Skybird will happly write bald faced lies and pure propaganda if it supports his normal anti American argument. Take this business about a GoP deal with Iran in 1979 for instance. Nothing but unproven allegations yet he acts as though it were somehow an established fact.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by August

Skybird will happly write bald faced lies and pure propaganda if it supports his normal anti American argument. Take this business about a GoP deal with Iran in 1979 for instance. Nothing but unproven allegations yet he acts as though it were somehow an established fact.

Yup. Same thing with Chinese support of Russia. Just say it, and supposedly that makes it true.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

Skybird is very intelligent and i respect him, but that doesnt meen he couldnt be partially or totally wrong. In an earlier thread he explained his vision of the future.

I'll agree he can be wrong, and he does sometimes seem to over-reach himself - China in the SOC and this one about the Iranians are fine examples.

However, I'll still grade him one up over the chest-beaters led by SD. If instead of "we have superior economic power", he says "we have superior military power" (which is true, especialy if you count the US), the sheer primitiveness of his basic thrust will be apparent to all. But really it is fundamentally the same thing.

They call that V-whatever guy who's now President of Russia warmongering, but how can he beat some of the members of our wonder group!

SD and Skybird can fight all day about whether Russia (the holder of the primary industry) or Europe (who holds the secondary and tertiary) can hurt each other more if it came down to it. Both sides might be able to partially reroute if it came down to a fight. But that isn't the point. The point is, both can put a good deal of hurt into the other side, as SD acknowledges in another thread. Again, if SD and Skybird were discussing who can hurt the other more if a nuclear war or conventional military conflict occurred, we'll see the primitiveness of going down that road.

Further, Skybird actually at least tries to understand the relative willpower (of acceptable "hurt") the two sides are willing to put in over this issue. And I think it is beyond argument that Georgia is a h*ll of a lot more important to Russia than NATO. If there is one side that might be willing to throw all to the winds, it'll likely be Russia (we are talking their national security vs "just another country for the bag"), so why does SD think it'll be Russia that backs off first?

Given that Georgia or even the Ukraine, ultimately, is not too important to NATO, realpolitik, which is what Skybird advocates (rather than "pro-Russian" propaganda), virtually mandates that West's response be very limited. Roaring and condemnation, of course, they'll do and they are executing. But real action? Military's out, that seems set. Sanctions? For all the roaring, the closest thing that came out of the smoke seems to be the Visa thing, which frankly, as far as sanctions go, sounds like a wrist slap, and even that's only being considered.

When Iraq hit Kuwait in 1990, UN Resolution 660 was passed w/i hours of the invasion, and within days they passed 661, and almost as fast Desert Shield began.

Now, it is something like three weeks since the fighting started, and we are still in the Noise phase. Looks like SB is going to get more of his prediction through after all. The West does not, in a realpolitik sense, want to find out who gets hurt worse in a economic fight. Thus, we see lots of noise and condemnations, and the slowest of actual motions.

If threats were reality, we'll probably be dead from all the nuclear threats made by now...

Finally, it is people like SB, who tries out other ways of tallying up the score, to place themselves in other people's shoes, that will understand other nations like Russia, be it to befriend her or to stop her more effectively, to pinch her where her leaders would agree it hurts.

As for the whole "push the other nations into NATO's bag" thing? Those nations were gone to begin with. Putin's only choices are a) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while smiling at Russia, b) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while frowning at Russia, and c) have them scared stiff of Russia enough they cease. (D: They stop being anti-Russia because they like Russia, had already been tried from 1990 onwards and proved to only turn into A). SD's perception is typical Westerner - even a small improvement in relationships is worth it even if decisions don't change much. Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Finally, it is people like SB, who tries out other ways of tallying up the score, to place themselves in other people's shoes, that will understand other nations like Russia, be it to befriend her or to stop her more effectively, to pinch her where her leaders would agree it hurts.

As for the whole "push the other nations into NATO's bag" thing? Those nations were gone to begin with. Putin's only choices are a) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while smiling at Russia, b) have them proceed with anti-Russian policies while frowning at Russia, and c) have them scared stiff of Russia enough they cease. (D: They stop being anti-Russia because they like Russia, had already been tried from 1990 onwards and proved to only turn into A). SD's perception is typical Westerner - even a small improvement in relationships is worth it even if decisions don't change much. Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

Spare me Kazuaki. This has nothing to do with somebody putting themselves in anybody's shoes here. The individual in question doesn't do that at all. It has been merely attempting to underscore true events here from a single point of view that doesn't exactly add up correctly to events that have occured. As a matter of fact, the individual you speak of is merely providing false propaganda and energetically promoting Russia's point of view...and it's a typical pattern with this person. The West, in particular the USA can never do anything right. And are dependant fully on Russia for everything. Meanwhile Russia doesn't care about the things we offer as it's all worthless and meaningless. What a total joke, and completely lopsided horse pucky. Not that I mind this individual's point of view, but spare me the window dressing here. This individual is not an unbiased person who sees things fairly and from an open mind at all. It always goes in one single direction everytime. Thusly, I can't take your post above seriously regarding this matter.

On the other matter, Russia understands the inevitability of the situation anyway. You're saying making enemies out of NATO, and in particular the USA is beneficial to Russia? You're supporting the point of view that NATO is hostile to Russia by treating former Soviet client nations as sovereign nations. Does making friends with former enemies truly threaten Russia? Or is it just deep seeded paranoia? Are these nations actually sovereign nations to you Kazuaki, or are they merely slave states to Russia who should only serve Russia's interests even at the expense of their own? Are you serious? The thing is Kazuaki, Russia is like that abusive and jealous ex-husband who used to beat his wife...and now tries to prevent her from seeking other relationships, and indeed turns to stalking her. Then wonders why nobody likes him or thinks he's creepy. We're talking about sovereign nations Kazuaki. I don't give a rat's rear end who's point of view you're looking at it from. Either you respect the right of nations to make decisions for themselves and their own interests.....or you can be like Russia who does not respect the rights of sovereign nations and attempts forced coercion through military threats. Russia is stupidly choosing to make enemies out of those who were not enemies at all. And that includes NATO and the USA. NATO even offered them a seat at the table as an observer with the US blessing. And of course Russia screwed that up. If Russia was smart, and NATO membership in these former states was inevitable, wouldn't it be alot smarter to actually use that seat as a way towards nominal relations? I think that actually sounds quite reasonable really.

You simply cannot quibble any of this away. Nor can you make yourself look like an unbiased source looking at it "from all perspectives" yourself. If you believe that Russia is proceeding smartly by breaking their cease fire agreements brokered by the French, is proceeding smartly by increasing their likelihood of economic isolation (perhaps you believe like Skybird that Russia is greater economically than most of the developed nations and needs no trade, no technology sharing or transfers, no food imports, or no lucrative commercial contracts etc. etc. etc. ),or if you believe they have proceeded smartly by turning themselves into a hostile player against those they wished to revolve around it's orbit...and now have helped bring NATO right next door (and have ticked them off to boot), then I guess I'll just have to disagree with you. I can see how Russia has made all the things they didn't want actually come to fruition. What a mess Russia has made for itself. If you can't see it, that's fine with me.

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Russia's perception, based on action, is more like A and B are not very different, and so there's nothing real to lose there, and any chance of C is worth shooting for.

One more thing. This kind of perception is actually a dangerous one for Russia. If this is how Russia truly perceives things, and I'm not convinced it is, then their leadership is truly out to lunch. You could never truly build a lasting friendship with a nation who thinks like this.

[Kazuaki Shimazaki II]

Originally Posted by Sea Demon

One more thing. This kind of perception is actually a dangerous one for Russia. If this is how Russia truly perceives things, and I'm not convinced it is, then their leadership is truly out to lunch. You could never truly build a lasting friendship with a nation who thinks like this.

Frankly, you are taking too idealistic a view of politics. A is certainly useful, but only if there is at least some chance of turning it into the ideal state of D. Otherwise, in terms of consequences, it is not very different from B.
B, in turn is only very bad if it causes additional unfavorable actions that would otherwise not have been taken. For example, say America asks next to put an "anti-Iran" bomber wing in Poland...

If you believe that Poland would have refused if not for Georgia, then that's Russia's loss. If you believe it'll have happened either way, it's a draw. But if Poland decides to be wary of Russia and refuses, then to Russia, that's a much better result than if Poland smiles at Russia and agrees to the bomber wing, no?

But don't be too grim about this. For one thing, the West had a part to play in telling Russia that A doesn't get them very far. Skybird might start from Kosovo and 1999, but I think the lesson the West has been teaching Russia in that regard actually started in the Gorbachev era, with CFE and Intermediate-Forces Treaty.
For another thing, B leading to C does not mean the close-off of D. D is the ideal result to both realists and idealists. If anything, if Russia actually gets to C, then D will become their natural goal as per realpolitik, and that might well bring a happier ending to all.

B->C->D is a perfectly plausible policy. It takes skill to play well, but Germany and Japan are actually examples of BCD, and if Iraq works out, it'll be BCD as well. Admittedly Russkies are not historically great at BCD, but if they are shooting for D, well, that attempt is already good, no?

[Sea Demon]

Originally Posted by Kazuaki Shimazaki II

Frankly, you are taking too idealistic a view of politics. A is certainly useful, but only if there is at least some chance of turning it into the ideal state of D. Otherwise, in terms of consequences, it is not very different from B.
B, in turn is only very bad if it causes additional unfavorable actions that would otherwise not have been taken. For example, say America asks next to put an "anti-Iran" bomber wing in Poland...

Strategic bombers are offensive strategic weapons, right? We're putting defensive systems on an independant nation's soil, that has agreed to host it. It truly is nothing Russia has any say in at all. Other than of course their empty threats. In terms of the consquences you speak of, it did cause negative consequences to occur that otherwise would not have occured for Russia. So yes. Indeed Russia screwed the pooch by thinking this way.

B->C->D is a perfectly plausible policy. It takes skill to play well, but Germany and Japan are actually examples of BCD, and if Iraq works out, it'll be BCD as well. Admittedly Russkies are not historically great at BCD, but if they are shooting for D, well, that attempt is already good, no?

OK. I see what you mean here. And I agree to an extent. It simply will not be to the same extent that has played out in those situations IMO. The way it's being applied here, with the circumstances that have occured, It's not exaclty the same scenarios being played out. But I will admit, your argument is very compelling. I will need to think about that further.

And in the interests of fairness, I do wish we would ask Russia for direct talks to address some of their concerns. Or Russia would calm the hell down, and request the same of us instead of their stupid rhetoric. In other words go back to where we were before. We were addressing their concerns, but they didn't respect our answers, nor have they shown respect for their neighbor's sovereignty and national interests. If Russia got their troops out of Georgia, and the USA agreed to state to state talks to seriously address Russia's concerns, this whole thing could be rectified. In the same vein, Russia needs to understand as well, that they cannot dictate to the USA, and other sovereign Eastern European nations whom they can form friendships or alliances with. Or what security agreements we come to mutually. If they come to work from that view...and accept that they do not rule the countries they border anymore, they might actually get somewhere. Otherwise they'll continue down this path and stand to lose more.

[Happy Times]

Originally Posted by Skybird

There have been many scandals in america'S political games, but the more serious and dirty tricks have been played by Republicans. The Iran hostage story. Watergate. Oliver North and the Contras. Iraq.

There is nothing I do not think they are capable of. Politics is a dirty business, cynism and lies are considered to be good tone. The glorious speeches are just for the crowd. Never trust them.

Panem et circensis.

Regarding Putin'S accusation - as I said, if he is right, then we will not be allowed to know. And if he is wrong, we will not know either. He has interferred with the US elections before in 2004, claiming he had evidence for Irqi nukes. that way he helped Bush being elected.

I dont see how this would help McCain, and this crisis isnt strengthening US position in the world but the opposite. These would have to be some rogue elements working on their own. Im aware "black ops" can happen in this world but i think you are really reaching here. This goes in the same X-file as 9/11 was a inside job and the rest.
Tough im sure many here believe in that also, mostly the same people that accuse me of fasicm.

[Skybird]

Think I've gotten enough of your personal insults, hurting lies about me and slanderings regarding my person, SD, because that's what your attacks and claims about me are. Off to my ignore-list you go. It's not about differing opinion. It is about bad behavior, and about you trying to promote your views by setting up lies and slanderings about people opposing your opinion. Maybe tricks like that are acceptable in your world. But not in mine.



And now again, given for the third time, for the rest of the crowd:

The last Ossetia-threads somewhat derailed into emotional venting, and even straight propaganda and nationalism. If you want to continue with that attitude, go back there - but don't start again here. Of yourse you can disagree with my views, but if you make that known, do it in a neutral way, like I post neutrally as well.

Since I initiated this thread, I somewhat share responsibility for it, so when you have 1.) a personal anger for with me and 2.) are not one of the three persons who made it to my ignore list so far, then vent in PMs and send them to me, and stop posting lies and slanderings about me in public. If this personal targetting of slanderings continue, against me or against anybody else, I'll ask the mod hereby to lock it immediately and without further warning.

It is sad that often a few bullies only are enough to ruin a thread for al others.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Happy Times

I dont see how this would help McCain, and this crisis isnt strengthening US position in the world but the opposite. These would have to be some rogue elements working on their own. Im aware "black ops" can happen in this world but i think you are really reaching here. This goes in the same X-file as 9/11 was a inside job and the rest.
Tough im sure many here believe in that also, mostly the same people that accuse me of fasicm.

McCain propagates tough US stands in a word full of rogues and evils, also american dominance and leadership, also McCain is a cold warrior and KGB-hater. Ossetia'S war shows two things in his support: if Russia takes and keeps it, it shows that McCain is right in his assessement on that russia still is the big enemy and the cold war in pricniple never ended amnd that it needs a man like McCain to protect innocent american citizens from the evils of the world. And in the unlikely case that Ossetia repels the attack, it shows that america'S alliance (with a thug not any more democratic than Putin himself) has helped to see thrpough american ideals and shining world order in an act of friendshipo that demanded a tough stand like McCain is claiming it for himself and denies that Osama'S foreign policy would be able to acchieve - because isn'T Obama just a soft bla-bla-talker who is willing to even negotiate with Iran on same eye level...? Hu - danger there, beware the black man ! And who do you think the industrial-military complex prefers to have in office Obama, pr Mccain? and they have gotten dirty hands in politics before.