What it seems like Rekna and Roachboy are getting it is the idea of recognition. It seems to me that, practically speaking, recognition by other nations is what makes a country independent. So the US isn't part of Britain anymore because nobody thinks of the US as being part of Britain. It seems to make a difference, at least rhetorically, whether a nation had been independent in the past. Georgia used to be an independent nation; South Ossetia, not so much, to the best of my knowledge. There are obvious issues floating around -- the United States, as such, were never independent countries. Israel was once an independent country, but that was a little while back. Serbia, yes; Kosovo, no.

Um... how is everyone ignoring the fact that in order to be an independent nation it must not be under the military control of another country? It's not recognition which gives a country it's status... it's primarily the military's ability to prevent incursions within it's own territory.

Granted, wars can go bad and land get lost. Countries can be partially or completely occupied, this is where international recognitions play a role. However this is backed up by the force of economic or militaristic threats which support otherwise non-independent countries through their rough spot.

The problem here is the pot/kettle factor of Russia. If their intentions were to be taken at face value we are then to question Chechnya. The fact of the matter is this is their assertion of force under the former-Soviet states in order to gain control as before. We saw this assertion in the poisoning of the Ukranian President, we are seeing it now, and we will see it again.

Umm, ok then countries that have no military are not independent? Places like Liechtenstein and Costa Rica would likely disagree with you. Hell, Costa Rica's own constitution prevents them from forming a military.

The problem here, in terms of McCain's response to Russia's action, is the pot/kettle factor:

"In the 21st century, nations don't invade other nations."

He and Bush, who made a similar comment, just dont see how the rest of the world views the US invasion and occupation of the sovereign nation of Iraq.

Or was it a U.N. coalition invasion (lead by U.S. military) followed by a peace keeping operation, all because of continued defiance of exhaustive U.N. resolutions by the Saddam regime? If the U.S. decided to invade Mexico because we said some of their border towns really wanted to be part of the U.S.A. (true or not), and because Mexican forces fired on U.S. forces while occupying Mexican territories, then you would have a more accurate parallel.

Iraq and Afghanistan where not unilateral incursions/invasions. Russia's invasion of Georgia was. The equipment used, troops, and logistics also prove that they had this planned months in advance.

So technically... McCain's statement was correct. And, of course, political nature compels the opposition to spin without the need for accuracy. They all do it and it's expected. We can only marvel at how it will play out.

Otto....you can call the Iraq debacle whatever you want.

By most measures, the majoritiy of Iraqi people (partciularly the relatives of the 100,000+ civilians killled and the 2+ million refugress and displaced persons) and the rest of the world call it a US invasion and occupation.

Why do you think it is that Bush polls so low among the rest of world (even lower than Putin):

http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pi...n08_graph1.jpg

World Public Opinion Poll

If one believes that McCain and Medvedev represent a continuation of Bush/Putin, do you think the world image of the US will improve? Or perhaps you dont think it matters what the world thinks of our political leaders.

We attacked Iraq because Bush wanted to. It didn't matter what Saddam did Bush would have went in. Bush may have even ordered a key piece of evidence against Saddam to be forged in order to make his case. We already know he knew it was forged when he presented it as evidence.

I understand why the McCain campaign believes it is to his political advantage to demonstrate his foreign policy “expertise and credentials” with his WW III doomsday pronouncements. After all, he is the warrior candidate.

But his WW III scenario keeps changing. First, it was al Queda in Iraq and the terrorist threat if we “abandon” Iraq, then it was Iran’s nuclear threat, now its Russia’s invasion of the Republic of Georgia.

IMO, characterizing these serious foreign policy issues as potential WW IIIs does not reflect well on his judgment nor does it serve US interests very well in our relations with both allies and adversaries. The US would be better served by a president who is not so bellicose and belligerent.

Whatever happened to “speak softly but carry a big stick” approach to foreign policy and diplomacy?

dc and Rekna... I'm not disputing or agreeing with your viewpoints on how things turned out in Iraq. I'm only pointing out that the official invasion of Iraq was executed as an official U.N. initiative, not a unilateral act of aggression by George Bush... unlike the unofficial unilateral invasion of Georgia by Russia.

If we are analyzing John McCain's senility based on the accuracy of the statement:
...then his statement was technically accurate based on the factual perspective that military action in Iraq and Afghanistan was a multilateral punitive action through the U.N.

Just because we don't like something, our opinions, popularity polls, unprosecuted assumptions and accusations do not change why the U.N. coalition acted against (violating U.N. member) Iraq. Until the official record is changed and Bush convicted for war-crimes, framing McCain's statement as inaccurate or senile is nothing less than propagandized political spin. If McCain implied otherwise, he would be criticized for not understanding the facts (and therefore incompetent), charged with spinning, or accused of being senile. It's how the game is played.
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 11 : 25 : 00-----
Good point. Iraq is a perfect example of exhaustive world diplomacy, world diplomacy failing, then following through with the "big stick". Remember, there are two parts to that quote.

If you want to be technical about it then be technical.

Technically the US is a nation.
Technically the US with/without the consent of others invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.
Technically it is the 21st century.

Therefore the statement "In the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations" is technically false.

Otto...the intent of my posts was not to rehash the legitimacy or effectiveness of the invasion and occupation of Iraq.

My point.....the US not well-served by characterizing every foreign policy "crisis" as the next WW III.

We have had a fear monger (when speaking to US citizens ) and a bully (when speaking to the rest of the world) in the WH for the last eight years and his actions have alienated allies and, to some extent, generated empathy for our adverseries.

IMO, a different approach to foreign policy is long-overdue and I dont think McCain offers that approach.

OK...

• Technically the US is a nation. Correct
• Technically the US with/without the consent of others invaded Iraq and Afghanistan. Incorrect. The U.S. as an independent nation did not perform an independent act of aggression by invading Afghanistan or Iraq. This was a coalition of nations prosecuting a violating fellow member of the U.N. according to the laws and resulting resolutions of the U.N. While countries are indeed members of the U.N., the U.N. exists as a group of nation members that agree to cooperate under international law. The U.S.A. did not invade Iraq, the international organization U.N. invaded Iraq
• Technically it is the 21st century.Correct
• Therefore the statement "In the 21st century, nations do not invade other nations" is technically false.In the literal interpretation of that single quote taken out of context, you are partially correct. The implication in the context of McCain's overall commentary was that civilized countries in the 21st century do not act unilaterally as Russia acted against Georgia.

So are we still arguing McCain's senility?
-----Added 18/8/2008 at 12 : 38 : 56-----
dc... agreed, who wants to rehash the U.N. military actions in the mid-east and the subsequent peacekeeping initiative all over again. :)

While I don't agree with your assessment of fear mongering and bullying in the WH, the specter of WWIII is always over-kill (by repubs or dems). I was focusing on the legitimacy of the specific senility charge against McCain.

Otto....one last point on the UN and Iraq:

The "US-led coalition" forces are not UN peacekeeping forces by any official measure or standard. They are occupation forces and over 90% are now US forces.

Putting that aside, I dont believe McCain is senile...I do believe he has a very black/white approach to foreign policy, much like GWB. There is no nuance, no subtilty...just more of the same..

Rattle the sabre.....shoot first....talk later OR how NOT to make friends and NOT influence people.

I respect your opinions dc. Though historically we've locked horns, it's always a challenge and an interesting exchange with you. You are sincere and consistant.

US + Allies = nationS emphasis on the S....

Anyway the comment is still very hypocritical. How about McCain saying you aren't rich until you make 5 million a year?

I understand how this situation has proved to be an inconvenient truth for your argument.

OK, let's take a look at what the transcript says:
So he really doesn't think it should be $5 million, it was a rhetorical comment with intended sarcasm. He called it correctly that his comment would be distorted.

To take one of out Dennis Miller's book.... Calling Obama an empty suit is an insult to hangers.

I'm sure the same could have been said about GW and indeed Obama has made quite a few slips ups along the way too.
To err is human, afterall.

Mc'Cain(?) and Obama are both blithering idiots and the two worst possible candidates. I'm not sure how these guys even became politicians, they'd never get elected to town council here. I think "all hat and no cattle" is the term.

Maybe compared to Bush they look like better choices and it's hard to argue that. Miss Teen South Carolina is more coherent.

I'm in a foreign country and not a US voter so it's a moot point but Cynthia McKinney is the only candidate i'd want to vote for. Since she won't likely be on the ballott and the machines will be rigged to steal any of her votes maybe she can run against Harper in Canada so there's at least one honest politician on the continent.

United Nations Security Council and the Iraq War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And your point would be ...?

Hmmmm Just looking at the OP, I find it weird that McCain can be attacked for his faux pas, yet, when Obama stated there were 57 states and so on, it's "you are racist, he was tired he made a mistake, etc".

So my question is for those that will defend Obama gaffes, why are you so willing to call McCain out for his? Instead of attacking his age and showing a prejudice against someone in his 70's?

I find what McCain said in the OP quite disturbing and it is, to me, as bothersome as having a nominee say
we have 57 states and so on.

I just see the hypocrisy and it is quite laughable.

Well it seemed pretty clear to me Obama meant to say he had been to 47 states. This is a miss-speak and Obama would admit what he said was a mistake. However many of these things McCain has said he either sticks by them saying they are true, or admits they are false and then repeats them again later. (Saying Iran is training Al'Queda many times even after being corrected).

Please read this article: http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/57states.asp

See, I find that attitude very bizarre. Obama obviously misspoke. Tired, whatever. It's patently obvious that he made a mistake, but ultimately, the number of states that comes out of his mouth is meaningless.

McCain "misspeaks" about the conflict that's happening on the Iraq/Pakistan boarder, and it's alarming because it shines a light on his lack of understanding of the world situation. Anyone who's as familiar as he claims to be with the middle east situation couldn't make such a mistake. He's this great big expert, and yet the things that come out of his mouth are nonsense.

The two "misspeakings" are of VASTLY different magnitudes. I don't see how you can even compare them. One is a clear flub that doesn't actually get anybody hurt, the other casts doubt on the fundamental platform the candidate is running on. I think that stretching the 57 thing to be equivalent is only possible in the context of a pre-existing position against Obama.

Some people would say this is not much of a change. Or even a change for the worse.




"Breathalyzer?' "Inhalator?"

The press, and many here, would have a field day if W had done this.

You're just part of the neo-con hate machine. Why do you have to be such a hater? ;)

all these are obviously television-effects. anything---a slip of the tongue to a gross misstatement of fact---repeated enough times for us the willing recipients of this sort of "data" becomes significant. sadly, information about actual policies does not seem to fit into the 10 second format, and so you know far less about where either of the candidates actually stands and what either proposes to do if elected than you know about the string of fuck ups each generates.

when this appalling sporting event of a primary process started seemingly at the end of the ice age, i briefly thought that there were important matters at stake in this election and that because there were important matters at stake maybe maybe a focus on substantial questions and positions would follow from that.

i dont see what mc-cain has to offer as a candidate and cannot image how it is possible that after 8 years of the bush administration that the republicans have any chance at all of getting another term in control of the presidency. and i would think that conservatives would be kinda pissy about the way the adverts that his campaign is running treats them--as little pavlov experiments, able to be mobilized with the push of some buttons (taxes bad---manly man good)....

but i also don't think we're in the election phase yet--i think we're in a strange kind of fantasy land which, if you step out of it for a minute, is obviously by television and for television with the main purpose of keeping you focussed for the delivery of vital advertisements which will enable you to determine what other commodities you might want in order to help you best express your all important individuality as an american.


yet it continues.

Very yes.

But I'm not convinced it's entirely a matter of the limbo-land timing. Do you really think things will change substantially after the conventions? I'm hoping at LEAST the scheduled debates will contain some sort of substantive contrasting of positions. I've pretty much given up on having any quality coverage of the campaign from the media.

Now McCain doesn't know how many houses he owns....

What?

McCain was asked how many homes he had, he stuttered and said he doesn't remember and his staff will have to get back to them.

There is audio of it at this link.
McCain unsure how many houses he owns - Jonathan Martin and Mike Allen - Politico.com

I'm still looking for the video.

Are they homes or houses? Does it really matter? Is it a matter of condominiums as rental or equity investments? Are any of their homes being used by family members?

Obama could not recall any racist or anti-American rhetoric coming from his pastor and church for over 20 years. He must be senile.

This is really a stretch by the Obama camp. Perhaps Barry should get his pal Tony (convicted felon) Resko to help his homeless half brother out with a new home like he did for him.

in the ongoing struggle to push the requisite buttons and rouse the corpse that is contemporary conservatism, the mc-cain campaign is starting to pull out all the stops. this advert positions obama as the antichrist.



at first i thought it had to be a hoax--but it it's a campaign ad from the mc-cain camp--but i'd like to think it's a really good hoax---because thinking that maintains something of my perky and optimistic outlook when it comes to my fellow americans.

but it seems that the state of affairs that we move through is of such a level of degeneracy that a site a "rebuttal"---no no, crazy people, the bible does not say the anti-christ will look like barak obama--is out there:

snopes.com: Is Barack Obama the Anti-Christ?

there are more links in this article

Barack Obama, l'Antchrist selon les rpublicains

which (**gasp**) is in french (the weblinks are not) and which laughs at all this.

it kinda boggles the mind.

I like the McCain response to Obama's speech about his houses. Does Obama really want to go this route? The whole Rezko thing can hurt Obama a lot.

I also find it funny that on the Saddleback Forum McCain jokingly said he thought 5 million would mean one was rich and continued to joke that it would be taken out of context. Guess what? Obama said that McCain thought $5 mil was rich. Obama continues to make a fool out of himself.

Obama needs to refocus his campaign on positive issues rather than resort to attacking. His whole platform was that he was different and wasn't the typical politician. Well if he decides to go down the road and use attack ads, he has completely betrayed his advertised values.

Dont you think that should apply to both candidates...and their surrogates?

Why single out Obama? The attacks against him have been far more scurrilous by any measure.

The anti-christ "card" has been played throughout history against a number of presidents and presidential candidates. I believe the ad is really lampooning Obama "fever"... the bizarre cult-like swooning or messianic idolatry over Obama... the "anointed one".

otto...the bizarre cult-like swooning or messianic idolatry is part of the myth spread by conservative....just as the myths questioning his patriotism or religion.

I understand that the conservatives have helped inflate this image, but I've seen the swooning in action... and it is bizarre (IMO of course).

IMO....posters here (and I include myself on occasion) have sunk to the level of the less informed general public and the most trite and hackneyed partisans hacks.

Perhaps that explains the lack of lustre in TFP politics lately....somehow, the issues and facts have gotten tossed aside along the way.

Sad to see.

personally, what i think is making the mc-cain people sweat is that among the effects of 8 long miderable years of george w bush et al is the possibility that conservative identity politics will no longer work. what the anti-christ ad is about works in a straight line from the advert they were running during the olympics---an advert that didn't make a whole lot of sense logically if you paid attention to the irritating voice-over rather than focusing on the bright letters that effectively said YOU CONSERVATIVES: YOU ARE AFRIAD OF THESE THINGS...i dont see mc-cain as having any particular affinity with the conservative far-right politics or the demographic that was backed into supporting it---backed into because what seems to have held the coalition together was commonalities in things to be afraid of, to reject---and if the above is right, then the strategy so far is not "vote for mc-cain" but rather "be fafraid of barack obama"

which is strange given how much conservative political talk goes in for manly man postures on questions of foreign policy.

well, maybe it's not so strange. not if you're a bit cynical about things.