About Me

Name: Yubaduck
Biography
Loading...

Create Your Own Blog Find Other Townhall Blogs

Comments

I couldn't resist

I saw this article onyahoo news, and I couldn't resist.  I have to wonder if kangaroo meat will come up as an issue in the vice presidential debate tomorrow.  I got a kick out of this even as I shook my head about how bizarre these people can get.  Enjoy the latest installment of bizarre science in the name of fighting global warming:
 
 
 
Kangaroos:  The other white meat?
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (2) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

American Actions are Responsible for Russia invading Georgia?

This post is in response to a comment by Caday5 on my last post.  I know as I have read elsewhere that I shouldn't "feed the troll", but I can't help myself.  I may not have much time to argue on this one, but anyone else feel free:

In 1990, when we went through the whole UN system to force Iraq out of Kuwait, we had multiple allies around the world, and a UN mandate to do so.  Part of the ending of that war was that our mandate did not extend to regime change in Iraq, simply to a removal of Iraqi forces from Kuwait.  So despite the fact that our troops were in Baghdad and there was no organized resistance to them, we stopped, and soon after left Iraq. 

What did Saddam do in response?  He shouted defiance from the moment we left.  He went after elements in his own nation that rose against him and killed thousands of them, so we instituted no fly zones.  He repeatedly shot at the planes we sent to enforce those zones.  We were doing so at UN request, yet the UN did nothing in response.  I was an Arabic linguist.  I know of several missions he shot at just when I was working.  Again, the UN did nothing.  In all, he flouted 14 or more resolutions from the precious UN and they did nothing.  Why? Because several of them were involved in an oil for food scandal making millions from it.  Others were afraid of retaliation.  For 12 years, our planes were shot at and our resolutions ignored and people thought it wasn't worth fighting back.  We allowed him to be defiant with no personal responsibility for 12 long years.  His people suffered though, through years of sanctions and limited trade, they suffered greatly.  But none of that reached the ruling circles.  So you tell me, is warfare worse than containment?  Ask someone who has lived in a regime being contained.  War is brutal but war has an end, containment does not.

Al Qaida formed as a response to American presence in Saudi Arabia, they had no love for Saddam or the Ba'ath party.  They first went after governments like the Saudis who allowed us to have troops there, then when capable began to go after us.  In 2000, 17 sailors died on the USS Cole, before the Iraq war.  They died in port in Aden, Yemen because Al Qaida wanted us out of Saudi Arabia.  As long as the UN wanted the no fly zones maintained to protect the Shi'ites and Kurds, we had to stay in Saudi Arabia.  Unless we decided not to live up to our UN obligations, we would keep offending them. 

9/11 changed our perspective.  We had to deal with Al Qaida, they had shown us what they were capable of.  And we had to deal with Iraq because our containment of them was a recruiting tool of Al Qaida.  We had 4 choices:

1) Walk away, let Saddam continue to rule, watch him brutalize his own people when the no fly zones went away, let him restart weapons programs and threaten his neighbors, and let him use oil profits to undermine us as we fought in Afghanistan.

2) Level the place.  Carpet bomb Baghdad, all military bases, all centers of control, and let them pick up the pieces.  Do the same to Afghanistan and let the chips fall where they may as we come back home.  Think the UN would like that better?

3) Attempt to maintain the status quo in Iraq while fighting in Afghanistan.  The problem was we had thousands of troops in Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, and Kuwait, enforcing all these UN mandates, and they were being undercut right and left.  How well would the alliance remain if we were fighting in Afghanistan against other Moslems?

4) Deal with Iraq while dealing with Al Qaida in Afghanistan.  Messy, difficult, and in fact, mandated by the UN when Colin Powell took his intel to the UN.  The idea that we went in without a UN mandate is not true.  It was after we went in that they changed their mind.  This was the toughest but most noble of choices. 

Like Korea, Vietnam, WW1, and every recent war in our history, except WW2 and Afghanistan, this was a war of choice.  We chose to fight what appeared to be an imminent threat to our ability to succeed against Al Qaida.  The idea that Iraq was a first is wrong.

1) We fought against Spain in 1898 in a war brought about because we sent a ship to monitor a nearby colony where conditions were horrible and refugees were entering America by the thousand.  When that ship was blown up, we assumed who did it and declared war.  Winning the Spanish American war was the end of over 60 years of isolationism.         

2) We fought in WW1 in a war between Germany and Britain mostly because Germany kept sinking our shipping.  We could have stayed out, but we saw a difference between the two sides in what was really none of our business. 

3) We fought the Germans in WW2 because they declared war on us.  Only Japan attacked us.

4) We fought Korea and Vietnam under the Truman Doctrine, the idea that Communism was expansionist by nature and that we had to stop its expansion into the third world.  Sometimes we stopped it by propping up anti communist dictators, (like Zia in Pakistan and the Shah in Iran) other times we stopped it through proxies (like the Contras in Niceragua) and a few times we stopped it with our own troops.  UN mandates were used some of the time, but this was really a US strategy and others could accept it or fight it.

In fact, none of these wars were after an attack (except Pearl Harbor and 9/11 leading to Japan and Afghanistan), and the idea that there is some nebulous UN playbook that all the world follows is a joke.

So Iraq was not a simple "cowboy" response of an evil america, it was a decision made like all wars are with good intent but with a real case being possible to make against it.  Did it lead to Russia invading Georgia?  Lets look at facts:

1) Putin has said repeatedly that it was Kosovo that fueled resurgent Russian nationalism, not Iraq.  When Kosovo was carved from the nation of Serbia, the fear in Russian circles was that Russia itself could easily be carved up this way.  Chechnya, a muslim enclave, had been clamoring for independence and Russia brutally put down the insurrection.  But Kosovo paved a pathway for Chechnyan independence.  Putin and others decided to use the Kosovo model for Russia.  Russia had enveloped these states into the Soviet Union by planting Russians in them during the 1910's and 20's.  Now it uses these people as a pretext, a reason to go in and rescue an oppressed minority.  Georgia is just one of the former Soviet states with Russian minorities from this source.  

2) Russia has bitterly accepted that it lost the Cold War because its economy could not sustain its military.  Now it sees that its oil wealth has invigorated it economically and Europes total dependence on Russian oil has given it a political tool it lacked in the past.  It sees a chance to regain superpower status.  It sees that now is its chance to reassert its strength, before a Georgian pipeline, a free Iraq, American drilling, and a safe gulf region reduce Russian profits on oil.

3) Russian leaders want the perks of economic ties without the constraints of political ties.  Like China, with a vibrant economy but a repressive regime, Russian leaders, hope to be the same.  

Ultimately, none of these factors relate to US actions in Iraq except that some of the World is so angry at us, that they will support any opposition we face.  Whether we were in Iraq or not, this was coming.  The only way to stop it was to make Georgia too tough to invade or to make the consequences too severe to face, or to see a change in Russian leadership.  The third is our best hope, but for that, we rely on the Russian people and their election decisions. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Its still a dangerous world

The media will either not report this, or it will get buried in the avalanche of political reporting, but today, 16 died in an attack on the US Embassy in Sa'na, Yemen.  None were Americans, so its easy to brush this off, but this story shows us three things:
 
 
1) Al Qaida is weaker than it was 7 years ago.  Contrary to reports and commentary from the Left and the Democratic party, this is about the best they can do.  It is still bad, and the loss of life is sad, but they have been weakened.
 
2) Al Qaida still exists and still wants to harm us.  Contrary to some who say the war is over, we can come home, cut the military, and focus on social programs, there is still an element out there that wants to hurt us.  They have been weakened, not eliminated.
 
3) Our defensive measures did what they were supposed to do.  We had at least 2 layers of concrete fencing, Yemeni guards ringing American guards, and other security measures that may not have existed prior to 9/11.  Now they exist, and they did their job.  16 died, but 6 were attackers, 4 were Yemeni guards, and 6 were Yemeni civilians.  This is tragic, especially the civilian deaths, but since the Yemeni government has refused our help, they have led themselves to this result.  Hopefully no more have to die to make them see that they ought to pick a side.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Don't be Fooled

   I saw this headline and thought to myself,  "Yes, we did it, our pressure forced them to concede."  But then I looked closer.  Here is the AP story:  http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/offshore_drilling
 
Its headline reads "House approves offshore drilling"  and describes a bill which will do far more harm than good.  The essentials:
 
1) "The House has voted to allow oil drilling off the nation's Atlantic and Pacific coasts if states agree — but only 50 or more miles out" and "The Democrats' bill would allow drilling in waters 50 miles from shore almost everywhere from New England to Washington state as long as a state agrees to go along with energy development off its coast line. Beyond 100 miles, no state approval would be required. The drilling ban would remain in the eastern Gulf of Mexico." and "They cited Interior Department estimates that 88 percent of the 18 billion barrels of oil believed to be in waters now under drilling bans would remain off limits because they are within 50 miles of shore. And they said few states would likely agree to drilling since the bill does not provide states with any of the royalties from the new energy production"
 
So it allows the states to vote for themselves on drilling, and since they get nothing from it, most of them would likely vote no.  It permanently limits drilling any closer to 50 miles out, putting off limits in perpetuity the best chance of large oil reserves
 
2) Roll back $18 billion in tax breaks for the five largest oil companies and requires energy companies to pay billions of dollars in royalties avoided because of an Interior Department contracting error.
 
Just a thought here, but won't retroactive taxes raise the prices dramatically?  Isn't that part of the point?  Oil is a commodity like any other.  Taxes ought not be overwhelming and really, ought to be at the state level much more than the federal, since state residents are the ones impacted by things occuring in their states.
 
3) Require the release of oil from the government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve to try to push down gasoline prices
 
This is a ridiculous non solution that will seriously risk our security if there is a real crisis (such as a war with Iran or a natural disaster that takes out too many resources.
 
4) Provide tax credits for wind and solar energy industries, the development of cellulose ethanol and other biofuels.  Require utilities nationwide to generate 15 percent of their electricity from solar, wind or other alternative energy source.
 
Tax credits?  I would rather see a less complicated tax code, not more, but I can live with that.  What I can't live with is the utilities mandate.  If these technologies are economically feasible, they will be adopted,  and if they aren't they won't.  This will force utilites to use higher cost alternatives to meet the mandate and they will pass ont he cost in the form of higher utility bills
 
5) Make it a federal crime for oil companies holding federal leases to provide gifts to government employees, a response to a recent sex and drug scandal involving the federal office that oversees the offshore oil royalty program and energy company employees.
 
I thought it already was a crime to bribe officials.  Isn't that what Sarah Palin made serious efforts to stop in Alaska?  I can support this, but don't know that it is really necessary.
 
6) Give tax breaks for new energy efficiency programs including the use of improved building codes and for companies that promote their employees use of bicycles for commuting.
 
Again with the tax breaks?  The idea that government needs to reward the behavior it wants with tax breaks is a sign that taxes as a whole are too onerous and need to be reduced.
 
7) Nowhere in this article did I hear mention of Nuclear Power, ANWR, Oil Shale, or any other of a number of serious reforms that need to occur in any productive energy bill.
 
We can't let up folks.  I am going to E-mail McCain tonight asking that he send Palin to the steps of the House to hold a press conference and speak with the Republican leadership of the House behind her about the faults in this bill, and the necessary components of an energy plan that will actually do some good.  Why her?  Because she is news right now, and she will bring press to house members who will otherwise be ignored.  If all of us who want energy reform do the same, maybe we will see it happen.  We can't let this ridiculous excuse for "comprehensive energy" give cover to the dems, and we must stand up to Republicans (especially in the Senate) who seek a compromise that does more harm than good.  I may have only 20 or 30 readers at most, but each of you has a few more and if we act fast, we can make this the issue that they must do something about. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Preparing to Lose

I have been swamped between the normal daily prep work for school and my two online classes (I am taking genetics and microbiology towards a masters degree), but I saw this and couldn't resist posting. 
 
The Democrats are preparing to lose.  They are getting it in gear, saying already two months ahead of time that if they lose, it is because of racism.  This quote comes from an article in "Salon":  
 
"I know there is a real concern out there that some people who normally would be voting Democratic might not vote for an African-American," said Tim Burke, the Democratic chairman of Hamilton County (Cincinnati and its suburbs). "Gov. [Ted] Strickland has spoken openly about this." Campaigning for Obama in Jackson County in the Appalachian southeastern corner of the state earlier this month, Strickland declared, "I'm going to talk about the elephant in the room -- and I'm not talking about any Republican. The elephant in the room is what everybody's thinking but nobody willing to talk about ... it's race."
 
Yes. There are racist people.  There are people I met in the Navy and in college who think that interracial marriage or dating is wrong somehow, that people of different races are less human than their own race.  I had a roommate in language school in the Navy that told me the Bible forbids interracial marriage.  He used as his verse some place in Leviticus where God told the Hebrew nation not to intermarry with the people of the land they conquered.  When I asked him wasn't that more because He didn't want them seduced by the religions of those people, he said it didn't matter and didn't want to talk about it.  So I get it, there are racist people.  But see what this author did?  He specified that "States like Ohio" are where this will be an issue, and further, that in the Appalachia corner of Ohio is where it needs to be dealt with.  It goes back to the assumption, the words Obama himself used, that it is poor uneducated rural white people who are too stupid to look beyond race to vote for the future.  Obama talked about rural white voters clinging to guns and religion and HATRED FOR PEOPLE DIFFERENT THAN THEY ARE.  He said that to an audience in San Francisco of rich liberals who completely agree with him.  We are seeing more and more of this from the press as Palin has an effect.  They are so convinced that their ideas are the right ones, so convinced that they are smarter than everyone else, that they cannot concieve of the possibility that their ideas are wrong, that maybe people move to rural areas seeking FREEDOM from government breathing down your necks, monitoring everything you do.  It isn't about race, for most rural voters its about freedom in an increasingly intrusive country. 
 
Now that the press is seeing the tide turn, they are getting ready, priming the pump, getting the memo to the community organizers, that if Obama loses it is Racism, and as such, there should be rioting in the streets.  How much more racist can you get than assuming that black voters will riot if Obama loses, that if Obama loses there will never be another black candidate, and that we the people are not individuals but are made up of monolithic voting blocs based on race, gender, and lifestyle?  I have a lot more to say, but no more time. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (13) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Most Important Race in November:

   While many of you are like me and have been made enthusiastic by the Palin pick, and others vehemently disagree either because McCain himself is unacceptable, or you find something objectionable in Palin or her record.  Wherever you fall on the Presidential race, don't forget that in many ways, the most important race this fall is not one race, but 435 races around the country for the seats in the House that come up every two years.  A house with over 290 liberals in Pelosi mode can override any action McCain may take, and can carry Obama in any direction he wants, especially if the Senate gets to the magic 60 for a filibuster proof majority or 67 for a veto proof majority.   You may think my seat is safe (like my rep who is very conservative and wins with 70% of the vote in Californias 2nd) or my seat is hopeless (like Californias 8th district, held by Pelosi, and never has she got less than 78% of the vote), and you may be right.  But at every level, from city council to Senate, legislators matter, and voting in the most conservative, diligent, and ethical legislators possible is very important, both for the sake of local government and to rise up future senate and house candidates with experience.  I will post on some specific races around the country that look close or look interesting, both in Senate and in the House, but my hope is that even if you can't pull the lever for McCain/Palin, you will vote thrid party or write in and still elect the conservatives to your local elections. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (4) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Unhinged

As the father of three daughters, I cannot express how sick I am about the far left and their willingness to smear and lie about a child in an attempt to discredit a candidate.  They are scared to death of Sarah Palin because she represents what many of them fear most:  A woman or minority of accomplishment who is off the liberal reservation.  To discredit her, they will do anything, including starting rumors about her children.  The fact that her daughter is pregnant does not lessen the "crime" here, it adds to it.
 
I had often thought that perhaps in my fifties, I might retire early from teaching and run for congress.  I have long believed that we were meant to be a "citizen government" and that therefore citizens ought to consider serving in politics.  I have thought I would wait until my children were at least out of high school, to avoid subjecting them to the rigors and ugliness of a political life.  But I don't think I can do it.  I am the father of three daughters.  They are currently 9, 7, and 1.  They are wonderful little girls.  Do I really want to see Daily Kos and Huffington Post spread filth about them in an attempt to discredit me?  Worse, if one of them does make a mistake and ends up in drug rehab, being an unmarried mother, or cheating on a college exam, do I really want to put them through this kind of hell?
 
I am a Christian, and I am raising my daughters in a Christian home.  But all have sinned and fallen short, despite my best efforts and despite their best efforts, they will make mistakes.  Apparently, those mistakes will be broadcast far and wide. 
 
In the Bible, two of Jesus' disciples made huge mistakes.  Judas betrayed Jesus to the authorities, Peter denied Him for his own protection.  Both felt remorse after realizing what they had done.  Judas then went out and hung himself.   Peter was broken, and cried out for forgiveness and it was granted him.  He went on to lead thousands to saving grace and even if he hadn't, he was forgiven.  Judas turned his back on forgiveness but it was there for him if he'd have asked.  That is the lesson I would have my daughter learn.  To err is human.  To forgive divine.  Gods love is unconditional, and our love as parents ought to be as well.  Sarah Palin and her husband appear to be living that way.  My prayer is that I will do so as well.
 
Bottom line, kids ought to be off limits.  Whether they are very young like Obamas daughters or adults like McCains, they should be a non issue.  Unless something criminal is done to cover for them or unless they are exploited for political purposes (for example if Palin or Biden, who both have sons going to Iraq were lying and their sons were not serving in the military, that is newsworthy because of their lie, not their sons service or non service).  I am sickened by this past 72 hours and even further disgusted by the complicity of "respectable" media outlets and members such as Alan Colmes and Andrew Sullivan in perpetuating these sick comments.  Some things ought to be sacred, even for politicians.  But I guess not, and the sad thing is, our nation will be far weaker for it if good people refuse to serve because of the toll on their families.   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (35) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Experience and Performance: Do they correlate?

For the last several months, I have assumed that the experience a president brings relates directly to quality of their administration.  Especially in the area of foreign policy, that experience leads to success.  I decided to do a little research into this.  Here is what I found when looking at Presidents resumes: 
Presidential Experience since 1945:

Bush 2000-2008      54 when elected              Education            Yale and Harvard

Prior Experience       5 years Air National Guard, 23 Years Oil Industry Executive, 8 years Texas Rangers Executive, 5 years Governor of Texas
Totals:  5 years government, 32 years private sector, 5 years military

Clinton 1992-2000            46 when elected              Education            Georgetown, Oxford, and Yale

Prior Experience         3 years college professor, Universityof Arkansas, 4 years Arkansas Attorney General, 11 years Governor of Arkansas,
Total:  15 years government, 3 years private sector, no military
 
Bush 1988-1992             64 when elected              Education            Yale
Prior Experience              4 years Naval Aviator,  16 Years Oil Executive,  2 Years head of Texas Republican Party, 4 Years US House of Representatives, 2 Years UN Ambassador, 2 Years Special Liason to China, 2 Years head of National Republican Party, 2 Years CIA Director, 8 Years Vice President
Total:  18 years government, 20 years private sector, 4 years military 

Reagan 1980-1988            69 when elected              Education            Eureka College

Prior Experience:  5 years sports broadcaster, 30 years actor, 5 years training officer, US Army (made training films), 7 Years President Screen Actors Guild, 8 Years Governor of California
Total:  8 years government, 35 years private sector, 5 years military

 Carter 1976-1980             52 when elected              Education            Naval Academy, Georgia Tech

Prior Experience:  7 years Naval Submarine Officer, 9 years farmer, 4 years State Senator, 4 years Governor of Georgia
Total:  8 years government, 9 years private sector, 7 years military
 
Ford 1974-1976                 61 when appointed         Education            Michigan, Yale
Prior Experience:  3 years Navy Navigator, 24 years House of Representatives (8 years minority leader), 1 year Vice President
Total:  25 years government, 3 years military

Nixon 1968-1974               55 when elected              Education            Whittier College, Duke

 Prior Experience:  5 years Lawyer, 4 years Naval supply corp officer, 4 years US House of Representatives, 4 Years US Senate, 8 years Vice President, 8 years lawyer and author
Total:  16 years government, 13 years private sector, 4 years military

LBJ 1963-1968                    55 when appointed         Education            Southwest Texas State

 Prior Experience:  5 years teacher, 12 years US House of Representatives, 4 years Navy Reserves and Presidential Inspector (during the 12 years above), 12 years Senator, 3 years Vice President
Total:  27 years government, 5 years private sector, 4 years military

JFK 1960-1963                    43 when elected              Education            Princeton, Harvard, and Stanford

Prior Experience:   3 years Navy torpedo boat commander, 6 years US House of Representatives, 8 years US Senate,
Total:  14 years government, 3 years military
 
Eisenhower 1952-1960   62 when elected              Education            West Point
Prior Experience:  37 years US Army, 2 years Supreme command of European Front, 3 years Army Chief of Staff, 5 years NATO commander
Total:  10 years government (military political assignments), 37 years military

Truman 1945-1952
           61 when appointed         Education            No College Degree
Prior Experience:  5 years Railroad timekeeper, 11 years family farmer, 3 years WWI Battery Commander, 4 years store owner, 6 years county judge, 10 years senator, 4 months vice president
Total:  16 years government, 16 years private sector, 3 years military
 
So what does all of this mean?  The decision to appoint Palin as Vice Presidential candidate for McCain caused me to look more closely at the issue of experience.  All Presidents in the past 63 years have had a minimum of 5 years in government.  (Bush had the least)  All of these Presidents except Clinton have some military experience.  Every President except LBJ and Ford had some experience as an executive of some sort, whether government, military, or private sector.   The three most experienced  "qualified" for the Presidency were Bush Sr, Ford, and LBJ.  The least experienced were Bush Jr, Reagan and Carter.  What I see is that my least favorite presidents fell on both extremes of the spectrum (Carter and LBJ) while my favorites (Reagan and Truman) were also at differing levels.  Truman was in my opinion the best foreign policy president of the last 60 years, and he had no prior experience....it was instinctual. 
 
What this little exploration into the past showed me is that on one issue, Obama is right.  Experience matters, but the right kind of experience, and experience is no where near as important as judgement.  Neither Obama nor McCain have been in a leadership or executive position in their lives.  Neither has Biden.  Palin has, though critics would say its on too small a scale to matter.  On judgement, on decisions made, I can say without hesitation I much prefer McCain to Obama.  I can say the same  but more so when comparing Palin to Biden.  
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Palin Pick: My Take

   About a year ago, a man visited my blog.  He left comments about how great it was, and wrote posts on his own blog about how it was one of the best he had ever seen.  Then one day, I wrote a post on Immigration policy he didn't agree with, and he debated a bit.  Later, I wrote about my support for Duncan Hunter and he totally disagreed.  Then he wrote a post about appealing to the middle and again I disagreed, and basically, I never heard from him again.   I took a break shortly after this because I got burned out on every post turning into an immigration debate, and the intense anger on both sides, and when I came back, he was no longer at townhall.
I mention this former townhall blogger, because before he disappeared, he was an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of Palin for President (and later Palin as a VP selection).  Before he discussed this, I had never heard of her.  While I parted ways with this blogger, and do not even know if he still writes elsewhere, I must credit him in part for what I am about to write because when he supported her last year, even though I had sort of written him off, I did a lot of research about her.  I was not one who would have made this selection.  I am by nature not much of a big risk taker, and this is a big risk because of her short tenure.  Having said that, though, this pick could turn into a great decision and not because Palin is a woman.  (Of course that was a factor in her choice, but there are many other reasons to choose her, and that will not be why she succeeds if she succeeds)
 
Palin has only been a governor for two years.  Like Bobby Jindal of Louisiana though, in her short tenure, she has shaken things up.  She has been determined to root out corruption, cronyism, and scandal in her state, and has succeeded at this.  She has been willing to take on entrenched Republicans who play that game, and to some in Alaska, she is more an enemy to Republican politicians than Democrats.  This matches McCain almost too well and might make conservatives uneasy, but read on.  She has also cut taxes, cut spending in a big way, and shrunk government.  She did however, raise taxes on oil companies.  This is something I oppose.  I think a part of her decision for this was a sense that since the oil property is on state land, the state deserves some windfall from its exploitation.  I can see this logic though I don't agree.  Thus on economic issues, she is a spending cutter, waste hawk, and for the most part, wants lower taxes.  All qualities I approve of.
 
On social issues, she is pro life, not just politically, but practically as well.  She made a decision to keep a Downs Synrome baby, has been a mother of 5, and in every respect, supports life.  She can point to those who demand a woman has a right to choose and say "I chose life for a baby many of you would have terminated, and we have been blessed."  She can point to her son if she chooses and say "It is a baby, not a choice."  She can shame a proponent of partial birth abortion without saying a word.  She opposes gay marriage, but allowed domestic partners to have hospital visitation rights in Alaska.  I don't have a problem with this, myself.  I believe anyone close enough to a person to want to see them in an ICU deserves to.  This does not legitimize marriage for them. 
 
She is an avid supporter of 2nd amendment rights, and from what I read, property rights as well.  She has governed Alaska, a state with massive challenges, and done so well.  She has shown all the instincts of a conservative because of her fight against the Republicans in Alaska, not despite it.  She is also a regular person.  Obama went to Princeton.  Bush 1 and 2 went to Ivy League Schools, as did Clinton.  Palin went to the University of Idaho.  (So did I......class of 95...I D AHO Idaho Idaho Go Go Go...yes I am a dork).  Her husband did not ever finish college and had a union job.  She is as blue collar as a politician can be.  She will connect with regular people (especially in the west) because she is one.  She is an outsider, but with 14 years of executive experience.  She was a mayor for 8 years, ran an energy board for 4 years, and has been Governor for 2.  Obama has little more experience but all of his is legislative (and only 2 years are at the federal level).  She is accounted a tough campaigner.  She beat 2 entrenched well known politicians in her run to Governor, one from each party.
 
So what line of attack will Obama and team use?  Obviously, they will say she is a token woman.  If they do this, the only way to prove them wrong is with a superior grasp of the issues, especially foreign policy.  Attacking her experience will be fought the same way.  Attacking her in any other way seems to be a no win proposition.  I think that for her more than for McCain, the convention speech she gives will have incredible importance.  She can't just run as an out of the beltway maverick as McCain did in 2000.  She must show she grasps concrete issues like energy policy (which she has experience with in Alaska), economics (which she has dealt with at local and state and private sector levels) and most of all foreign policy.  It is in the last of these that she must show that her knowledge has depth, not just from the hip comments. 
 
After all, because of McCains age, this is a far more crucial VP than any other in my lifetime.  The last elected VP to actually take offiice was LBJ (Ford was a replacement VP for Agnew), and LBJ was a whole different character than JFK and changed the direction of the country greatly .  Conservative and Liberal alike, we want to know that she can handle the reigns should McCain go down in his years as President.  She can show us this by her convention speech, her campaigning, and most of all her debates with the "expert" who wanted to make Iraq like Bosnia, Joe Biden.
 
All in all, McCain took a big chance.  I hope it pays off, and I feel confident that she will show us she is ready to lead.      
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (6) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

The Obama Slump: Is it Racist?

Here goes another one.  Liberals can't seem to help themselves.  This article from Slate decries the racism of McCain and Clinton supporters, and declares without a doubt that the only reason Obama is not winning handily is racism among rural whites.  What an arrogant, elitist jerk.  Read for yourself what he has to say.  I could dissect and analyze this junk line by line and show the stupidity of the arguement, but the convinced will not be swayed.  As he says near the end of the article:
 
If Obama loses, our children will grow up thinking of equal opportunity as a myth. His defeat would say that when handed a perfect opportunity to put the worst part of our history behind us, we chose not to. In this event, the world's judgment will be severe and inescapable: The United States had its day but, in the end, couldn't put its own self-interest ahead of its crazy irrationality over race.
 
This is identity politics in a nutshell.  No real person believes in supply side economics.  No real person believes in the war on terror.  No real person believes in capitalism, American exceptionalism, or the candidacy of John McCain.  The only reason for a real person to vote for McCain is either 1) He is a multibillionare who wants evil capitalism or 2) He is a racist redneck who can't bring himself to vote for a black man, and will invent any excuse he can to justify this racism.  Again, what an arrogant jerk to presume to call me and anyone else who does not fall in line on the Obama coronation a racist. 
 
I could attempt to argue.  I could talk about the black family members I have, the black friends I have had in college and the military and still have at work and at church.  I could talk about the minimum of 5 black politicians I can think of just off the top of my head that I would have voted for over McCain, much less Obama.  I could talk about this and more, and fail to convince anyone because their mind is made up one way or another.  As one black man I worked with in the Navy said:  "You can't help being racist because you are white.  You don't understand black people and you insult us just by being white."  How do you argue with that?  Instead, I am going to link to the article if you want to see the outrageous claims that we will see widespread about American racism if Obama loses, and instead dissect the actual reasons for Obama dropping from a 10 point lead to a statistical tie.
 
 
There are three recent world events that have convinced a sizeable number of American voters that Obama is:
 
1) Out of touch
2) In over his head
and 3) Incredibly arrogant.
 
Event 1:  The Energy Bill:
 
The Pelosi led Democrats sent a lifeline to both McCain and house Republicans last month.  Their unwillingness to even allow a vote on drilling as part of a comprehensive energy solution did not show that they are out of touch with how the high fuel prices are hurting Americans, it showed they don't care.  For all their talk about being the party of the people, they would rather see people give up their American Dream than cave on a promise they made to extremist environmental groups.  Sure we all like clean air.  (The California wildfires this summer reminded me how much I  like a clear sky)  We all want happy frolicking salmon swimming joyously up river, happy polar bears, playing in the pristine snow, joyous deer bounding and leaping through old growth forests, we all at heart are environmentalists to a degree.  But when push comes to shove and we have to choose between the bounding deer and our kids, most logical people choose family.  My personal experience is that in the last 2 years, my gasoline bill has gone from 4% of my family budget to 11% of my family budget.  In response, we don't go out much.  We carpool when we can.  We drove much less this summer than last.  Food, utilities, and other expenses have also gone up.  We scrimp more and still pay more.  Yet Obama in a painfully tone deaf moment, told me and everyone like me to inflate our tires.  He has refused to call on congress to get back in session and make an effort at a comprehensive energy bill.  His own bill was an environmentalists dream, with very limited drilling possible, huge taxes to raise oil costs higher,  bureocracy and failed price controls from the 70's, and the pipe dream of solar panels and wind mills riding in on their shining steeds to save us all.  Obama proved he is out of touch.  It is not his race, it is not his wealth.  It is the incredible tone deafness of his policy to the real needs of Americans.
 
2) The Middle East and Russia
 
Obama has reversed himself more times than imaginable on Iraq, confused himself on Iran, called to bomb a nuclear nation Pakistan and called for an Iraq-like surge in Afghanistan.  He has no coherent policy, no defined policy aims, and no idea what he believes about the world and Americas place in it.  This was all exasperated by Georgia.  When Russia invaded, it brought back the shadows of Cold War politics.  McCain immediately stood strong.  Obama drifted, eventually weakly echoing McCain.  Bush drifted as well.  And the reaction of Bush reminded me that he too came into office a political neophyte.  He too had no foreign policy experience.  Over the last month it has shown.  He was clear in Iraq because despite the drum roll of cowboy contempt coming from Europe, DC and the anti war press, he knew he was right.  Against Russia, led by a man he trusted, he was at a loss.  The moral clarity was gone.  What to do?  Obamas response and the stark reminder that we live in a serious world woke people up to the danger of a weak indecisive President.  More than Carter and the hostage crisis, this reminds people of Carter attempting to forfeit the Cold War.  The press articles calling for restraint, for America being at fault for encouraging Georgian democracy, for Iraq, Kosovo and Bosnia leading Russia to feel threatened and that we need to empathize reminds most Americans that Carter and the press were wrong towards the end of the Cold War, and Reagan and his hawkish friends like McCain were right.  Weakness at this moment portends extreme danger, and Obama for all his change and hope portrays American weakness and apologetic mush, which even France now recognizes is not in anyones interest.  Again, not a racial issue, but a real logical reason to oppose Obama and choose McCain as a stronger alternative.
 
3) Obamas Magical Mystery Tour:
 
This ultimately was the biggest single reason for Obamas fall.  (not the most important, but the one that stood out the most)  The arrogance, the presumptuousness, of a presidential candidate going to Berlin and speaking to a massive anti American crowd of leftists at the site of our Cold War triumph, and the vacuousness of his message there sent a clear symbol.  It said unequivocably that he, like his wife has stated, is ashamed of America, embarrased by the ignorant rubes who believe America is exceptional, and as president will lead America back to comfortable mediocrity.  There is a problem though.  We ignorant rubes are the electorate, not the Berlin masses or the French coffee shop set.  We vote, and we really don't appreciate the arrogant disrespect we hear every day from this candidate and his wife, and his campaign.
 
It is not about race, it is not about wealth.  It isn't even all about politics.  When it comes down to it, people don't like being talked down to.  That is what doomed Kerry and it is what may doom Obama.  No matter how many times you dress it up as closet racism, I think even jerks like this author know better.    
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (16) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

A note on reduced posts

For the few who read this blog on a regular basis, I must apologize, life has a way of keeping me from regular blog posting.  This summer, I went without a post for about a month as I prepared during most of my free time for this hectic fall, and now hectic fall is upon me.  I am a teacher, so I am back to school, but I am also taking two online classes towards a masters degree in Biology.  I am finding that I have to spend about 2-3 hours a night working on college stuff to keep up as well and another hour or so to keep up with correcting papers and updating lesson plans, plus trying to help raising my 3 daughters, so blogging is falling by the wayside.  I missed it though these last 2 weeks, hearing something on the radio or seeing something in the paper in the breakroom and thinking "wow, I could comment on that.",  but not having the time.  I am going to try to do a post almost every weekend, just to keep it going, because I enjoy it so much, but it certainly won't be as frequent, and I will be less able to visit other blogs, as much as I enjoy them.  Hope people still visit, and keep fighting the political fight.  Stop by on occasion, there will still be something here that may be interesting. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCains Statement on Georgia

   I usually don't like to cut and paste without much analysis, but I think this is pretty important for people to see a contrast here.  First is a statement from John McCain on the crisis in Georgia, and what should be done about it.  He made this statement while at a campaign stop in Erie, PA, and I got it from his campaign blog at fox news.  I agree wholeheartedly with his statement, especially the part where he mentions how important this is to nations such as Ukraine, Poland, and the Baltic states of Lithuania, Latvia, and Estonia, who seek closer ties to the US and still have fresh memories of life behind the Iron Curtain.  Second will be a blog post from Joe Klein, the foreign policy correspondent of Time Magazine.  Keep that in mind when you or members of your family get their news from Time.
 

ARLINGTON, VA – Today, in Erie, Pennsylvania, U.S. Senator John McCain delivered the following statement regarding the current conflict between Georgia and Russia:

Americans wishing to spend August vacationing with their families or watching the Olympics may wonder why their newspapers and television screens are filled with images of war in the small country of Georgia.  Concerns about what occurs there might seem distant and unrelated to the many other interests America has around the world.  And yet Russian aggression against Georgia is both a matter of urgent moral and strategic importance to the United States of America.

“Georgia is an ancient country, at the crossroads of Eastern Europe and Central Asia, and one of the world’s first nations to adopt Christianity as an official religion.  After a brief period of independence following the Russian revolution, the Red Army forced Georgia to join the Soviet Union in 1922.  As the Soviet Union crumbled at the end of the Cold War, Georgia regained its independence in 1991, but its early years were marked by instability, corruption, and economic crises.

“Following fraudulent parliamentary elections in 2003, a peaceful, democratic revolution took place, led by the U.S.-educated lawyer Mikheil Saakashvili.  The Rose Revolution changed things dramatically and, following his election, President Saakashvili embarked on a series of wide-ranging and successful reforms.  I’ve met with President Saakashvili many times, including during several trips to Georgia.

“What the people of Georgia have accomplished – in terms of democratic governance, a Western orientation, and domestic reform – is nothing short of remarkable.  That makes Russia’s recent actions against the Georgians all the more alarming.  In the face of Russian aggression, the very existence of independent Georgia – and the survival of its democratically-elected government – are at stake.

“In recent days Moscow has sent its tanks and troops across the internationally recognized border into the Georgian region of South Ossetia.  Statements by Moscow that it was merely aiding the Ossetians are belied by reports of Russian troops in the region of Abkhazia, repeated Russian bombing raids across Georgia, and reports of a de facto Russian naval blockade of the Georgian coast.  Whatever tensions and hostilities might have existed between Georgians and Ossetians, they in no way justify Moscow’s path of violent aggression.  Russian actions, in clear violation of international law, have no place in 21st century Europe.

“The implications of Russian actions go beyond their threat to the territorial integrity and independence of a democratic Georgia.  Russia is using violence against Georgia, in part, to intimidate other neighbors – such as Ukraine – for choosing to associate with the West and adhering to Western political and economic values.  As such, the fate of Georgia should be of grave concern to Americans and all people who welcomed the end of a divided of Europe, and the independence of former Soviet republics.  The international response to this crisis will determine how Russia manages its relationships with other neighbors.  We have other important strategic interests at stake in Georgia, especially the continued flow of oil through the Baku-Tblisi-Ceyhan pipeline, which Russia attempted to bomb in recent days; the operation of a critical communication and trade route from Georgia through Azerbaijan and Central Asia; and the integrity and influence of NATO, whose members reaffirmed last April the territorial integrity, independence, and sovereignty of Georgia.

“Yesterday Georgia withdrew its troops from South Ossetia and offered a ceasefire.  The Russians responded by bombing the civilian airport in Georgia’s capital, Tblisi, and by stepping up its offensive in Abkhazia.  This pattern of attack appears aimed not at restoring any status quo ante in South Ossetia, but rather at toppling the democratically elected government of Georgia.  This should be unacceptable to all the democratic countries of the world, and should draw us together in universal condemnation of Russian aggression.

“Russian President Medvedev and Prime Minister Putin must understand the severe, long-term negative consequences that their government’s actions will have for Russia’s relationship with the U.S. and Europe.  It is time we moved forward with a number of steps.

“The United States and our allies should continue efforts to bring a resolution before the UN Security Council condemning Russian aggression, noting the withdrawal of Georgian troops from South Ossetia, and calling for an immediate ceasefire and the withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgian territory.  We should move ahead with the resolution despite Russian veto threats, and submit Russia to the court of world public opinion.

“NATO’s North Atlantic Council should convene in emergency session to demand a ceasefire and begin discussions on both the deployment of an international peacekeeping force to South Ossetia and the implications for NATO’s future relationship with Russia, a Partnership for Peace nation.  NATO’s decision to withhold a Membership Action Plan for Georgia might have been viewed as a green light by Russia for its attacks on Georgia, and I urge the NATO allies to revisit the decision.


“The Secretary of State should begin high-level diplomacy, including visiting Europe, to establish a common Euro-Atlantic position aimed at ending the war and supporting the independence of Georgia.  With the same aim, the U.S. should coordinate with our partners in Germany, France, and Britain, to seek an emergency meeting of the G-7 foreign ministers to discuss the current crisis.  The visit of French President Sarkozy to Moscow this week is a welcome expression of transatlantic activism.

“Working with allied partners, the U.S. should immediately consult with the Ukrainian government and other concerned countries on steps to secure their continued independence.  This is particularly important as a number of Russian Black Sea fleet vessels currently in Georgian territorial waters are stationed at Russia’s base in the Ukrainian Crimea.

“The U.S. should work with Azerbaijan and Turkey, and other interested friends, to develop plans to strengthen the security of the Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan oil pipeline.

“The U.S. should send immediate economic and humanitarian assistance to help mitigate the impact the invasion has had on the people of Georgia.

Our united purpose should be to persuade the Russian government to cease its attacks, withdraw its troops, and enter into negotiations with Georgia. We must remind Russia’s leaders that the benefits they enjoy from being part of the civilized world require their respect for the values, stability and peace of that world.  World history is often made in remote, obscure countries.  It is being made in Georgia today. It is the responsibility of the leading nations of the world to ensure that history continues to be a record of humanity’s progress toward respecting the values and security of free people.

“Thank you.”
 
Today, the following piece was posted by Joe Klein at Time magazines website:
 
When a column starts off like this:
The details of who did what to precipitate Russia's war against Georgia are not very important. Do you recall the precise details of the Sudeten Crisis that led to Nazi Germany's invasion of Czechoslovakia? Of course not, because that morally ambiguous dispute is rightly remembered as a minor part of a much bigger drama.

 

The events of the past week will be remembered that way, too.

...the author has got to be a neoconservative pushing for the next war. In this case, it's Robert Kagan, girding for a new twilight struggle with the Sovi...uh, sorry: that was a couple of twilight struggles ago...Russia. Kagan is smart and modulated in this case. He carefully lays out the U.S. and European Union initiatives in Eastern Europe that have led to the Russian pushback. Most of the western actions have been morally justified support for the new democracies--and Georgia may be the most heart-warming example--in the region; others, including the costly and technologically untenable missile defense system fantasized by Bush, have been unnecessarily provocative. And Kagan's (right)wingman, Bill Kristol, is similarly modulated in the NY Times:

The good news is that today we don’t face threats of the magnitude of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union. Each of those regimes combined ruthless internal control, a willingness to engage in external aggression, and fervent adherence to an extreme ideology. Today these elements don’t coexist in one place. Russia is aggressive, China despotic and Iran messianic — but none is as dangerous as the 20th-century totalitarian states.

But don't let that fool ya. With Word War IV--Norman Podhoretz's ridiculous oversell of the struggle against jihadi extremism--on a slow burn for the moment, Kagan et al are showing renewed interest in the golden oldies of enemies, Russia and China. This larval neo-crusade has influenced the campaign of John McCain, with his comic book proposal for a League of Democracies and his untenable proposal to kick the Russians out of the G8.

To be sure, Russia's assault on Georgia is an outrage. We should use all the diplomatic leverage we have (not all that much, truthfully) to end this invasion, and--as Richard Holbrooke and Ronald Asmus argue in this more reasonable take--help Georgia to recover when it's over. And, to be sure, neither Russia nor China are going to be our good buddies, as many of us hoped in the afterglow of the fall of communism. They will be a significant diplomat challenge.

But it is important, yet again, to call out the endless neoconservative search for new enemies, mini-Hitlers. It is the product of an abstract over-intellectualizing of the world, the classic defect of ideologues. It is, as we have seen the last eight years, a dangerous way to behave internationally. And it has severely damaged our moral authority in the world...I mean, after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, after Abu Ghraib, after our blithe rubbishing of the Geneva Accords, why should anyone listen to us when we criticize the Russians for their aggression in the Caucasus?
 
I'll let these pieces speak for themselves.
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (8) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

McCain vs. Obama: Different Approaches to the 3 AM Moment in Georgia

This article, which I found on Yahoo.com but apparently comes from politico, is an analysis of the difference between how McCain and Obama reacted to the news of the Russia and Georgia escalating into what could be a very ugly war.  http://news.yahoo.com/s/politico/20080809/pl_politico/12409
 
I am only going to cut and paste the words of the candidates and then analyze a bit:
 
Obama:    “I strongly condemn the outbreak of violence in Georgia, and urge an immediate end to armed conflict,” Obama said in a written statement. “Now is the time for Georgia and Russia to show restraint and to avoid an escalation to full-scale war. Georgia’s territorial integrity must be respected.”   Obama added briefly that the international community should get involved. More than an hour later, as more details of Russia’s incursion into Georgia emerged, he cited Russia more directly: “What is clear is that Russia has invaded Georgia’s sovereign — has encroached on Georgia’s sovereignty,” he told reporters in Sacramento.
 
McCain:   "[T]he news reports indicate that Russian military forces crossed an internationally recognized border into the sovereign territory of Georgia. Russia should immediately and unconditionally cease its military operations and withdraw all forces from sovereign Georgian territory.   The government of Georgia has called for a ceasefire and for a resumption of direct talks on South Ossetia with international mediators. The U.S. should immediately work with the EU and the OSCE to put diplomatic pressure on Russia to reverse this perilous course that it has chosen.”
 
Of course, both almost immediately criticized each other and stated that the other sent the wrong message.  Here is what I immediately notice.  While both call for Georgian sovereignty to be protected, Obama words it as "both sides need to stop" and McCain stated "Russia needs to stop its aggression".  Why the difference?  Three reasons:
 
1) While Obama is likely unfamiliar with the region, McCain knows the conflict and immediately responds against Russia because he knows of its stirring up insurrection in former Soviet Republics.  Because of this, he takes a hard line, while Obama takes a lets all talk and figure this out approach.
 
2) Obama sees Russia as Europe sees Russia, as a country we can't afford to antagonize.  As a pragmatist, he is willing to sacrifice some territory in a small nation that means little to us toplacate the bear.  McCain sees Russia as the remains of the USSR that holds compromise in contempt and only respects toughness.  He also knows Georgia is not just an obscure backwater, they are a friend who supported us in Iraq and wants to join NATO.
 
3) Obama believes in moral equivelence, McCain believes that in this conflict, there is a right and a wrong. 
 
So who is better?  I'll leave that to you, but I certainly have my own preference.  It is also interesting to read the analysis by the author. 
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (29) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Georgia: Why it matters and what we should do

Georgia has half as many people as New York City and is about as far away from us as its possible to be.  It involves neither Islamic Terrorists nor American citizens.  So does it matter?  I think so.  What should we do?  On that I'm a little less sure.
 
Why it matters:
 
1) The main route for oil to enter Europe is through Russia.  The other two are the Persian gulf shipping lanes, and a pipeline from Azerbaijan to the Black Sea in Georgia.  If South Ossetia becomes Russian, their new border is just a few miles north of that pipeline.  If the other area of Ossetian people becomes Russian, then all European oil comes through either Russia or Iran (except for the very small North Sea production).  A Europe that depends totally on Russia for Oil becomes even more craven than we have seen.
 
2) Part of the problem that occured when the Soviet Union broke up in 1991 (and Yugoslavia as well) was how far to go.  Whether to allow the independence of small breakaway Republics that had been under Soviet control for 70 years....Whether to allow states that had been first Russian then Soviet, in many cases since the 1700's or 1800's, to attain independence.  Whether to allow ethnic enclaves within former Soviet Republics to break into their own independent states.  The problem comes when you go too low level, the states are no longer continuous or economically viable.  When Yugoslavia broke up, the peace agreement reached divided Bosnia by ethnic lines, creating a patchwork country that seemed impossible to ever make viable.  I myself would have preferred a Lebanese style power share between ethnic groups.  After Bosnia, the Europeans and America decided to make Kosovo independent.  Its Albanian people had been subject to Serbia since the Ottoman times.  Russia warned this would set off a flurry of ethnic independence claims.  The first was Chechnya, which they suppressed ruthlessly.  Also were South Ossetia which they supported to destabilize Georgia.  When we accept the Wilsonian premise that all ethnicities deserve independence, where does it end?  A good solution to this question will answer many question so far unasked throughout Eastern Europe, Africa, and Asia.  An ugly war and failure to deal effectively will destabalize dozens of other ethnic questions around the world.
 
3) Georgia wanted NATO membership.  They took most of the steps needed, have a representative government, civil rights, and many reforms. Germany said no, worried about Russian reaction.  Now Russia is invading.  This sets a bad precedent.
 
4) Georgia wa one of the coalition of nations willing to support us in Iraq.  Despite their small size, they currently have the third largest number of troops there.  We have a certain level of obligation to support them in their need as well.
 
So what should we do?  Sending in troops seems out of the question.  This is ot our war after all, and a proxy war with Russia does no one any good.  Unfortunately, I have no good answers.  I think we ought to do something, but I am at a loss as to what.  Any suggestions?   
Email ItEmail It | Print ItPrint It | CommentsComments (3) | TrackbacksTrackbacks (0) | Flag as offensiveFlag as Offensive

Georgia: History leading up to today.

In light of the newest conflict on the world stage, I thought it might be worthwhile to do an outline history of Georgia, its relationship with Russia, and the other ethnicities within the Caucasus region.
 
The Caucasus is the mountainous region between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea. The Russian Federations states of Dagestan and Chechnya, and the independent nations of Armenia, Georgia, and Azerbaijan make up this region between Iran and Turkey to the south and Russia to the north. Being in a gateway region such as they are, the people of this region have been conquered a number of times. The Russians under the czars conquered some of them in 1864, adding them to the Russian Empire. This region became more important than a geographical gateway when Oil became important around the turn on the 20th century. When the Russians took over, many of the Circassians and others fled into Ottoman Turkey, while others stayed and fought, and still others accepted Russian rule. After the Soviet revolution in 1917, the region was