What Would Obama Do About the Russia/Georgia Conflict?
Posted on August 15, 2008
I think he’s already told us.
With events in Georgia over the past week, it is time to revisit Barack Obama’s stated views on America’s defense needs. In the video above, Obama pronounces a McGovernite disarmament credo:
I will cut investments in unproven missile defense systems…
…I will not weaponize space…
…I will slow development of future combat systems…
…and I will institute an independent “Defense Priorities Board” to ensure the quadrennial defense review is not used to justify unnecessary spending…
…I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons…
…and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons…
…I will seek a global ban on the production of fissile material…
…and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert…
…and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals…
Isn’t it time for someone who covers politics for a living to ask Obama about this credo?
Meanwhile, John Bolton admonishes how Bush handled it.
The United States fiddled while Georgia burned, not even reaching the right rhetorical level in its public statements until three days after the Russian invasion began, and not, at least to date, matching its rhetoric with anything even approximating decisive action. This pattern is the very definition of a paper tiger. Sending Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Tbilisi is touching, but hardly reassuring; dispatching humanitarian assistance is nothing more than we would have done if Georgia had been hit by a natural rather than a man-made disaster.
The European Union took the lead in diplomacy, with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich: a ceasefire that failed to mention Georgia’s territorial integrity, and that all but gave Russia permission to continue its military operations as a “peacekeeping” force anywhere in Georgia. More troubling, over the long term, was that the EU saw its task as being mediator – its favourite role in the world – between Georgia and Russia, rather than an advocate for the victim of aggression.
Even this dismal performance was enough to relegate Nato to an entirely backstage role, while Russian tanks and planes slammed into a “faraway country”, as Chamberlain once observed so thoughtfully. In New York, paralysed by the prospect of a Russian veto, the UN Security Council, that Temple of the High-Minded, was as useless as it was during the Cold War. In fairness to Russia, it at least still seems to understand how to exercise power in the Council, which some other Permanent Members often appear to have forgotten.
The West, collectively, failed in this crisis. Georgia wasted its dime making that famous 3am telephone call to the White House, the one Hillary Clinton referred to in a campaign ad questioning Barack Obama’s fitness for the Presidency. Moreover, the blood on the Bear’s claws did not go unobserved in other states that were once part of the Soviet Union. Russia demonstrated unambiguously that it could have marched directly to Tbilisi and installed a puppet government before any Western leader was able to turn away from the Olympic Games. It could, presumably, do the same to them.
Hat tip: Hot Air and Any Bryant.
» Filed Under 1st Amendment, Communism, Europe, News, UN, Video
Trackback URL
Comments
13 Responses to “What Would Obama Do About the Russia/Georgia Conflict?”
Leave a Reply
“with results approaching Neville Chamberlain’s moment in the spotlight at Munich” Am I the only one who sees the “1939 in Munich” statement as a worthless saying? They’ve been using it since Korea. Give it a rest, for Saint Pete’s sake.
Now, I’m still trying to understand why this is any of our business. And why Russia is the “bad guy” in this. From my reading, South Ossetia wants to succeed to Russia, correct? And Georgia didn’t want this. So they attacked (planning for this for about a year) and Russia defended South Ossetia. Am I wrong? What am I missing? And when did the US sign a Treaty/Agreement with Georgia, saying we’d protect them?
And on top of all this? We decide to send “Anti-Missle” defense systems to Poland. Just to piss off the Russians. So what does Russia want? To put “anti-missle” defense systems in Cuba.
God Bless our Foreign Policy. Oh, and our Military Contractors.
Obama lives in a dream world! Is he actually naive enough to believe our enemies will voluntarily give up their nuclear weapons? Maybe he is. Maybe he is either incredibly naive or incredibly stupid. Either way this is reason enough not to vote for him.
Beyond that, it is pretty hard to come up with a convincing argument against putting weapons in to space, when it seems inevitable anyway. History show that everywhere man goes, he brings weapons. Space will be weaponized at some point, weather he likes it or not. If we don’t put weapons in space, chances are someone else will.
What would Obama do?
Talk.
Talk.
Talk some more.
Maybe rattle a sabre.
A plastic sabre.
Talk a little more.
Then ignore it and hope it goes away.
If it didn’t….
He’s talk some more.
In short…
Obama would probably do little to nothing substantive.
Ron: said I’m still trying to understand why this is any of our business.
Now why would any country want to be allied to the US if the US couldn’t come to their aid in a crises or protect them? (ò¿ó)
So Ron would it be Ok if Detroit, New York and Seattle wanted to succeed to Canada?
How about the if the US just invade Cuba, no more missile conflict.
Obama’s policy about Georgia’s conflict, chickens and waffles for everyone.
A Military Family War Hero or muslin trick baby, that’s a no brainier fool (ò¿ó)
What has Bush done? He’s looked into the eyes of Putey and seen his soul. He’s nearly busted our military, ignored intelligence in favor of ideology, run up a 9 trillion dollar deficit, and made the US an even greater example of hypocrisy and ineffectiveness in the eyes of the world. What has McCain done, but flip and flop until he is now in line with the fake conservatives running Washington. Neither Bush, McCain, nor Obama is stupid enough to start a war with a country that actually has WMDs. It’s all hot air and chest thumping.
“So Ron would it be Ok if Detroit, New York and Seattle wanted to succeed to Canada?”
Yes I would be fine with that. Why would anyone care if that city or state choose to succeed to Canada? If that’s what the people of those citys and states want, who are we to say no?
“Now why would any country want to be allied to the US if the US couldn’t come to their aid in a crises or protect them? (ò¿ó)”
I’m sorry Mack, I only care about America. Not our interests, or alleys. I also believe that there is still a segment of our “American Leaders” who still want to go to war with Russia. When they really haven’t done anything to American Soil.
Why is it our Business?? Was my question, and all I got from you was a uniformed hack explanation, worthy of a Bill Kristol or Commentary magazine column.
Boy, are you behind the times. Didn’t you hear Obama already solved this issue? He turned it to he UN. Problem solved!!!!
The all-knowing “Wizard of UN” in the Emerald City will be able to get Obama and his merry band back to Kansas, where they can bribe voters with $1K and “pay” for by increasing the cost of energy for the next decades.
opps posted before spellcheck, but the point is the same.
Regular Ron,
Let’s change a few words in what you wrote:
“I only care about America. Not our interests, or alleys [sic]. I also believe that there is still a segment of our “American Leaders” who still want to go to war with GERMANY AND JAPAN. When they really haven’t done anything to American Soil.”
Sweet pea, on Saturday, December 6th, 1941, lots of people talked and thought like you do today. I’ll give you one guess what happened at 7:55 a.m. the following morning.
Mark…do we really have to have a histroy lesson here? Let’s not look at the reasons why Japan decided to attack. It wouldn’t have had anything to do with FDR’s economic sanctions and bench marks the Japs couldn’t reach? Or was it the Oil embargo that finally made Japan angry enough?
Yeah, let’s not look at facts here. Go back to your Government high school book
Ron Do you actually think that young democracies can survive and grow if they are not protected by other democracies from communist aggression? or maybe you don’t believe in a democracy?
Ron the isolationist.
Imagine the US deciding not to get involved against Hitler. The US would have ended up having to deal with a two-front war on American ground.
Ron and his “Bad America” rants, where did you get your marxist/socialist indoctrination? (ò¿ó)
Mack..Why is it America’s “job” to protect these “young democracies”? Why, nothing in our Constitution states anything of the sort.Do I believe in “Democracy”, well, if someone can show me something better, than yes I do like democracy.
Now for the “isolationist” comment. Does an “isolationist” believe in Free Markets, and Free (not Goverment Manufactored) trade? The last time I checked, and isolationist is almost to the point, a Socialist.
Which leaves the last comment you made. Nothing in my beliefs have anything to do with Socialism/Marxism. I am, more or less a Radical Free Market guy, so there goes that argument out the window.
Now for the “two front war”. Nothing has shown me that this would have happened, if we had stayed out of it. Show me something that backs up that saying, then I will rethink it.
Oh, and I love America.Critising the Governments Foreign Policy,does not make me “Anti-American”. Being a Conservative BEFORE 9/11 happened, I remember our motto being “Love your Country, Fear your Government”. But since the Republican party has become home to a bunch of Statist loving Democrats, I guess I’m not welcome anymore.
Ron says “why is it America’s job to protect these young democracies”
It doesn’t specifically have to be America but since out of all the democracies in the world we are a superpower and have the recourses and leverage to counter any aggression by a foreign body
Countries such as Italy, France, the Philippines, South Korea, and Kuwait would be owned and occupied by those who opposed them and England would be a German speaking country.
Today, each of these countries remains free as a result of America’s will to spread democracy and freedom abroad.
Ron says “I do like democracy” .
Then why not support and defend it wherever it is in the world? (ò¿ó)