finknottle

Eh - things skew too easily. The problem is that if you draft a player who is a bust, you usually have to turn around and draft another at the same position, making it look like you 'foolishly' have been overspending there. Quite a few teams get stuck on the 1st round-qb-goround, through no fault of their own. Or more precisely, because of bad talent evaluation, not drafting strategy.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/..._churchill.html Red meat for those who think the Georgia situation is a big deal.

Because most people are not morons. *If* we could succeed without destroying the world or our own well-being in the process, then sure. Unfortunately, we can't. Nor can we bring it to a nuclear-armed North Korea. But where we can, we should not be afraid to consider the option. The logic that an average sixth-grader grasps but that somehow eludes the anti-war left is that only an idiot is obligated to respond the same way in all circumstances. Most people will give a homeless person a dollar, but reject the proposition that they therefore must then give every homeless person around the world a dollar too. Is their selective charity hypocracy? If you see third graders bullying a classmate, I'm willing to bet that even you would intervene personally to break up the fight. But then are you a hypocrat if you wouldn't jump into an M-13 gang beating, choosing to call the police instead? This idea that, in order to be consistent, every country with WMD must be invaded because Iraq was is possibly the most disingenous argument put out by the anti-war crowd. If we give aid to a country hit by a tsunami, *must* we give aid to every country with a natural disaster? If we give a poor country money to fight aids, *must* we give all countries money for that purpose? That appears to be the strawman logic being put out by the left.

Here's a interesting factoid I wasn't aware of: McCain and Hillary Clinton nominated Georgia's President Mikheil Saakashvili for the Nobel Peace Prize in 2005.

Because actions in defiance against the UN are still relevant in judging the behavior of a nation, just as are their actions in defiance of, say, the WTO or even the international copyright forum. Luxembourg is irrelevant. But if another nation cheats on their agreements with them, it is still reasonable to use that fact to draw conclusions about the other country's behavior.

An argument can (and was) made that the authorization stemmed from 1991; after all, that war had never been officially concluded, it was only a cease-fire. The UN never refused the US to have its stupid war - or can you point me to a resolution which says otherwise? But regardless. You seem to be saying that all wars that are not explicitely UN sanctioned fall into the same moral equivalence, and that circumstances (the huffing and puffing about breaking sanctions, thwarting agreed-upon inspections, and past behavior) do not matter. As a logical consequence, no action or sanction of any kind against Russia, China, the US, or any other veto-wielding power can be deemed moral. Good luck with that worldview.

Remind me which UN sanctions Georgia was in violation of? Was it playing games with UN inspections, targeting UN-approved coalition planes? And what was it's track record as an international trouble-maker? The following editorial might very well have been talking about you in their close: http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MDcwY...Yjg=&w=MA==

And this is precisely how you play the appeasers. At the risk bringing up an example which officially marks the end of reasonable discourse in this thread, weren't similar statements issued after the Germans liberated the Sudentenland? Will the west write off Georgia and declare 'Peace in our Time?' After all, it's obvious the with their objectives met, the Russians have no further designs on Georgia, and certainly not on the Ukraine or elsewhere.

One brief moment of clarity amidst a lifetime of foolishness.

Agreed that they were probably ill-advised. But I want to nit-pick on wording. 'They mounted an offensive in South Ossetia, bringing in extra troops. As an area of Georgia, they had limited troops there under terms of a cease-fire (being violated by the insurgents). That, after all, is why there were Russian troops there too - they were obstensively 'peace keepers.' Attack South Ossetia suggests that this was an invasion rather than a civil war. They were attacking insurgents in South Ossetia. If Pakistan moved regular army troops into the tribal areas to support their frontier forces, would we say it was an invasion or that they were attacking Northwest Frontier Province? No.

Don't leave Carter off of that list out of partisanship. It is an important lessen that even he - a certified peacenik and fool - knew that sometimes you have to man up in the face of aggression.

And when has Europe effectively united and stood up against bad guys in the last few decades? I'd be interested in an example of success. It sure wasn't Bosnia. Or Iraq during the sanctions. Or Libya. Or during Russia's cyber assualts on the Baltic states, or the energy embargoes of Ukraine and elsewhere. Or Zimbabwe. Or Iran today. Please, give me a shining success story for diplomacy without the credible threat of military force. Yes, McCain comes across as having a short fuse. But that itself can be an effective deterrent. People are strangely reluctant to be provocative if they think there is a real chance of retribution. They are less reluctant if they think they only risk a non-binding resolution at the UN or half-hearted diplomatic rebukes. Miscalculations more often occur when an opponent's resolve is under-estimated, not over-estimated. As for what I propose, nothing. It's too late to help Georgia. I'm merely pointing out the pitfalls of being a pacifist nation in the modern world.

It has everything to do with the prevailing philosophy of the left, espoused by Obama and likely to be emphasized by him when he assumes the presidency. There are no bad guys in the world (except ourselves) and that countries will behave reasonably if only would you talk to them. It is a philosophy which has been applied to Putin's Russia for over a decade now, and pandering has only emboldened the slide into authoritarianism. Putin has been running circles around the Europeans and the UN... don't you find it a little suspicious that Germany's Prime Minister Gerhard Schroder - the fierce critic of the US - coincidentally pushed Russian energy interests onto Europe while in office and went to work for Gazprom when he left? The world is a lot more aggressive, confrontational, and unresponsive to lofty idealism than the left believes. As for Bush, so what? He's painted himself into this corner and it's too late for him to do anything about the relationship now. It's ancient history.

Yeah, he played Bush big-time. Even went to church with him, lol. I don't know which prospect will be worse the first time Obama meets Putin. Getting his pockets picked (ala Bush), or the dangerous miscaculation that will result if Obama gets it into his head to try to play it tough (ala Kennedy after his Kruschev meetings).

You are no doubt aware that South Ossetia is part of Georgia, and that there were already troops there, right? And that despite a Georgian cease-fire, their troops were being attacked by Russian-backed insurgents? And that the Russian 'peace-keepers' were either doing nothing or actively supporting the insurgents? What should the Georgian's have done? Let the attacks continue unanswered? If you've been following the news these past few year, you are aware that Russia reacted poorly to the Rose revolution and the possibility of Georgia joining NATO; fuel deliveries from Russia to Georgia have been 'disrupted' over the winters; several Russian military personnel in Georgia proper were arrested on spying charges; Russia responded with a complete economic embargo; cyber attacks have ben shutting down Georgian government services; and that Russian planes have been buzzing Georgian airspace all year. Yeah, Georgia fired the first salvo. I think it is no coincidence that by agreement the last of the Russian bases in Georgia were supposed to have been vacated in 2008. It sure is suspicious timing that Georgia has embarked - according to Putin - on a campaign of genocide against Russians right now. I don't think we'll see the Russian troops withdraw for a long, long time.

Up to a limit, yes. But it is a dangerous slope. How many years do you turn a blind eye publically and 'work behind the scenes' privately before you realize that it is just appeasement? Do you let them reoccupy Georgia without calling them out? The other central asian states? The Baltic states? Ukraine? What about when Russian gas deliveries to western europe are mysteriously disrupted at politically convenient times? You misrepresent McCain's position. This is not his first introduction to the Russia issue, unlike Obama who has been googling his way to a position. McCain has (right or wrong) been hawkish with respect to Putin for a decade now. He took heat from the Republicans for his ridiculing of Bush's 'I looked into his soul and saw a kindred spirit' stuff. He has taken flack recently from the Democrats for saying that Russia has no business attending and influencing the G-8 meetings, and should no longer be invited. The left argues that it is important that Russia (but apparently not India or China) be engaged to reward positive behavior. I'm still waiting for the results... If he responded bluntly to this latest event, it is because he has been raising the same alarm for over a decade.

The Georgian withdrawl and pleas for a cease-fire have gone unanswered. Russian ground forces have now moved beyond South Ossetia and are assualting Gori in central Georgia. It's 3AM, President Obama, what's your response? Oh, I remember - he's a citizen of the world who doesn't assign blame: "Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint, and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war." European-style responses will only lead to disaster.

I am unaware of any requests by the DNC to have the candidates remove themselves from the ballot, only that they not campaign there and that the delegates not be seated. In fact, I'm confident that no such request was made. Only half the candidates did so in Michigan. None did so in Florida. As for it being unfair to Obama, boo hoo! Was Obama's media advantage in Illinois, Missouri, and Indiana unfair? Is the advantage that both Obama and Clinton share unfair to Gravel? What about the 12 other democratic candidates that were never even invited to a debate? Was that unfair? Your claims about Obama winning in Fla and Michigan don't hold water. How was Florida unfair, coming immediately after the nation (including Florida) was blanketed with glowing news accounts of his Super Tuesday victories, and nothing but gloom-and-doom about Clinton? He had the media advantage, and he still lost at the ballot box. Even in Michigan, pre-election polling gave Clinton a 46% to 23% lead. Exit polling put her lead at 46% to 35%. The bottom line is simple: fewer people voted for Obama than the candidate he beat for the nomination. You can talk if's and but's and argue circumstances, but it doesn't change the results. EDIT: The participants in the Texas caucus were a subset of the voters in the primary - that is, they had already voted. It's pretty obvious that the primary total is the one to use in counting the popular vote, unless you believe that caucus participants should have their votes count for twice as much.

Huh??? You either were voted for or you were not. How are the numbers a misrepresentation? He took himself off of the Michigan ballot - nobody asked him to, he made a political decision not to be seen as losing to Clinton in an important state for the national election but which was uncontested and would not count towards the nomination. Four candidates requested that their names be withdrawn, four candidates did not. And he was on the Florida ballot - he got 32.9% of the vote to Clintons 49.8%. Texas has released its vote totals - he received 1,362,476 votes (47.4%) to Clinton's 1,462,734 (50.9%). The only states which have not released totals are Iowa, Nevada, Washington and Maine. Without those states Clinton's margin is 286,687. Reputable stimates for those states are available and reduce her lead to either 175,000 or 225,000 (depending on which caucus for Washington you use - they had two for some bizarre reason, with different margins. Only one of them elected delegates, the one which reduces her margin to 175,000.)

If he was as inspirational as his campaign would have you believe, than why did fewer Democrats vote for him than Hillary Clinton in the primaries? Wouldn't that make Clinton even more inspirational? He'll get most of their votes come November. But to say that he was an inspirational force even within of his own party is an over-statement..

It is ironic that if the soldiers are acting under orders they can be killed on the spot, but if they are acting on their own - moonlighting by escorting drugs across the border while in uniform, say - it would be an infringement of their civil rights. And isn't it racial profiling to stop somebody in a Mexican military uniform without a reason?

You guys are attacking a strawman here. There is not meaningfull support for military intervention in Sudan among the withdraw-from-Iraq crowd. If there were then there might be something worth debating.

And in 5 or 10 years they wouldn't improve? What if, once sanctions were lifted, they increased their efforts to obtain missile technology? What would you do, other than have sharp words for them? The UN would clearly not be an option at that point, nor would sanctions. What leverage would you have at that point?

Actually, they don't. Not enough of them anyway. During the early debates Biden consistently called for military intervention in Darfur, arguing that one battalian of US troops would smash the Janjaweed and allow the AU peacekeepers to move in. His very emotional entreaties were coldly ignored by the other candidates and the audiences, and his candidacy went nowhere.

I only hope the fine folks of Michigan and Florida take it to heart that their opinions matter to Obama and will be counted. Unless it matters, in which case they only count if they agree with him... BTW - does this mean we can finally acknowledge that Clinton beat Obama in the popular vote? Or is the Obama camp saying that the FL/MI delegates count but not the voters?