Obama to go hat in hand to the Russians to beg forgiveness.

[PDH]

Comparing me to Marty is like comparing a artichoke to a Ford F-150.

Wait, so you ARE Mart?

[garbon]

Then again, this is semantics.  I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland. 

Yeah best to assume that he is just ignorant...

Also, I'd say it is a discussion of geography, not semantics.

[PDH]

Also, I'd say it is a discussion of geography, not semantics.

Don't be anti-semantic.

[garbon]

Don't be anti-semantic.

On the contrary, I find it to be the superior study.

[Ancient Demon]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

[Berkut]

There's been quite a bit of fighting in Iranian, Pakistani and Afghan Balochisan, but I doubt we are using Zaranj as a major supply center or anything, or that the Iranians would strike against Pakistani Balochistan.

Then again, this is semantics.  I seriously doubt Berk had any idea how out of the way the Pathan trouble areas are from the Iranian heartland. 

It isn't really the point though.

Neither is it the point that we cannot stop the Russians if that is what they wish to do - the point is that they rather clearly do not share your guys naive dreams that containing Iran is more important to Russia than opposing the US. Because there is no reason to sell Iran these weapons other than to counter the US and the West, since that is who they would be used against - whether that be in Afghanistan or Iran.

[Neil]

You know, ever since somebody mentioned it, I keep thinking Martinus when I see Berkut's avatar.

The power of suggestion is truly incredible.

[Hansmeister]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.

[Ancient Demon]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.

Let's not get carried away. He's not groveling.

[Alatriste]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.

Bollocks.

Take Eisenhower's presidency:

- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.

That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...

[Razgovory]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.

Bollocks.

Take Eisenhower's presidency:

- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.

That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...

You should know by now that what Hans says has little or nothing to do with reality.  I was thinking of saying the same thing (only with Nixon) but I figured it would be unnecessary.

[Warspite]

There's no harm in talking nice to Russia, provided nothing important is given away.

This is what JFK thought, which is how he ended up careening from crisis to crisis.

Obama's groveling in response to continuous provocation is an embarrassement.

Bollocks.

Take Eisenhower's presidency:

- 1953: USSR gets H bomb, he does nothing. Surrenders to China and let's North Korea get an armistice.
- 1954: Surrenders again in Indochina, lets France in the lurch; Commies get North Vietnam.
- 1956: Treasons Israel, France and Britain; Commies get control of the Suez channel trough Nasser. Treasons Hungary too.
- 1957: Sputnik. America humbled.
- 1958: Rewards Red aggression inviting Khruschev to tour America.
- 1960: U-2 shot down over the USSR. He does... nothing.

That would be Hans' tale if Ike had been a Dem. Of course it's a ridiculous story, but I fail to see how Kennedy 'groveled' and 'went from crisis to crisis' and Eisenhower didn't...

Don't forget Ike's atrocious war record.

[Queequeg]

Speak of the Devil! http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/04/opinion/04iht-edzourabichvili.html

Op-Ed Contributor
A Fresh Start in Georgia
By SALOMÉ ZOURABICHVILI

Like many fellow Georgians, I once had such high hopes for my country, as did our friends in the West. It began with the optimism of the Rose Revolution, grew as Georgia was named a "beacon of democracy" by the Bush administration, and solidified as Georgia came to be seen as a strategic partner for stability in its neighborhood. Sadly, this dream has ended. Democracy itself is crumbling in Georgia.

Under Mikhail Saakashvili Georgia has become an authoritarian state, buoyed by unbalanced power and millions of dollars in aid. Institutions that should be the very foundations of democracy have been undermined. Our Parliament, with a two-thirds majority for Saakashvili's party, is unable to provide checks and balances. Elections are fraudulent and discredited, as illustrated in reports by the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe on ballot-box stuffing and intimidation during the last presidential elections.

With the seizure of news outlets and the censorship of journalists, there is no longer a free media. The penal system is rife with abuse, not just with political interference in the judiciary, but also with torture in our prisons, as documented by the U.S. State Department. Georgia is now a country where everything — from business to sports to culture — falls under government control.

The Bush administration must bear some responsibility for giving priority to stability and turning a blind eye to the Saakashvili government's increasingly authoritarian tendencies.

We hope the Obama administration will take a stand that reflects America's principles in aiding the development of truly democratic institutions in Georgia rather than simply supporting individual leaders. We hope much-needed financial aid will be conditioned on adherence to principles of democracy, civil society and human rights.

Since the Rose Revolution there have been reversals in three key democratic pillars — increasing restrictions on media freedom, political interference in the judiciary and the erosion of private property rights. All of these should be reason enough for the United States and the European Union to push Georgia — a country of major strategic importance given its bearing on relations with Russia — back on the path toward democracy.

An ideal starting point involves the case of the TV channel Imedi, Georgia's only independent national television station until it was seized and ransacked by security forces and then expropriated from its legal owners to silence criticism of the government.

The seizure is symbolic of government attacks on private property. A recent court judgment upholding Imedi's confiscation, despite clear evidence of fraud and forgery, is widely seen as illustrating the total lack of independence of the judicial system. The intimidation of Imedi's journalists is evidence of the violation of human rights. Imedi has become the symbol of a free press that has ceased to exist.

This is not an isolated case: On March 12, one of Georgia's most prominent journalists, Inga Grigolia, resigned her position at Georgia's public broadcaster when the station refused to air an interview with a former government minister who is in exile for fear of his life. The editor of the Georgian Times, a popular weekly newspaper, last week suspended publication after his son was threatened by police officers at gunpoint. Imedi itself, which the government claims is independent, has been taken over by a Ministry of Defense official.

In Georgian, the word Imedi means "hope," and that hope has been shattered. But by taking action on this one issue, the United States and its allies can demonstrate their commitment to democracy in Georgia. Demanding that the Georgian leadership returns Imedi to its rightful owners, thus restoring its independence and permitting a voice of balanced journalism to again be heard, would be a clear signal that U.S. policy in Georgia will insist on development of the basic democratic institutions we so fervently seek. Furthermore, restoration of media freedom will give Georgia a crucial instrument it needs to rebuild its civil society.

I have called for new elections in Georgia that would be free and fair so that the people can begin to rebuild a truly democratic society. What we need, however, is uncompromising international commitment to the basic institutions of democracy, not simply foreign support for individual leaders. Democracy must have a fresh start in Georgia — and a fresh stance from our genuine friends abroad.

A little better than Pravda,  Berk?

[Neil]

The New York Times?

[PDH]

The New York Times?

I know, not good enough for Mart...er Berk...whatever.