McCain: "In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations"

McCain: "In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations"

www.huffingtonpost.com

Speaking to reporters about the situation in Georgia, Sen. John McCain denounced the aggressive posture of Russia by claiming that:"in the 21st century nations don't invade other nations."

It was the type of foreign policy rhetorical blunder that has regularly plagued the McCain campaign and could have diplomatic ripples as well. Certainly the comment was meant in innocence. But for those predisposed to the notion that the U.S. is an increasingly arrogant international actor, the suggestion by a presidential candidate that, in this day and age, countries don't invade one another -- when the U.S. is occupying two foreign nations -- does little to alleviate that negative perception.

(visit the link for the full news article)



[edit on 14-8-2008 by grover]

Ahem... Perhaps someone should tell Mr. I got the foreign policy experience to be president about Iraq.

www.huffingtonpost.com
(visit the link for the full news article)

I wish he had made sure that Mr. Bush received, read and followed the information the memo. Oops, I keep forgetting that current admin has either gone paperless or the dog ate it.

This just seems like a traditional do as I say, not as I do. I would like to think that the US will not be repeating these actions in this century but I would not bet on that fact. It simply has to do with what is to be gained.

It reminds me of a power hitter in baseball. Always standing around swing a big bat. You know that sooner or later he is going to take that bat and whack a baseball or two.

I am sure Mr. McCain is getting tired of the taste of his foot. He should perhaps follow the advice to keep his mouth shut to from prevent looking like a fool...

... I am not saying that he is but for someone running on their foreign policy experience.... he certianly does a good job of shooting himself in the foot on it.

reply to post by grover


It makes one wonder how his thought process worked on that one. Has the Iraq situation just become an insignificant, forgotten memory or does it imply a belief that the US is above the standards that should be applied other nations.

I don't believe he meant it as way of pointing out an improper action by the US. Maybe we didn't invade, we liberated from dictatorship.

Somemes I wonder if McLame simply doesn't care, kinda like Shrub, and figures people will simply elect him no matter what. Or he knows something we don't aobut the election this November. There is a third option tho, McSame is throwing the election so that Obama will win, meaning Obama is ontrolled by the same people McBush is.

reply to post by grover


grover, problem was McCain didn't have his lap-dog, Joe LIEberman there to whisper in his ear.

AND, McCain still has a lobbyist for the Republic of Georgia on his campaign...his foreign policy 'advisor' a certain Mr. Randy Scheuneman (sp?)

It all stinks to high heaven.

McCain 'pledged' his support for Georgia, in a speech back in April. NOW, after the fighting started, he says 'We're all Georgians'.....a desperate attempt to sully the memory of 9/11, callously twisting words, for his own political gain. Meanwhile, since he IS NOT the POTUS, all of his rhetoric is empty, anways. Truly disgusting......

Mark my word the invasion of Georgia has absolutely nothing to do with a break away provience or anything like that... it has nothing to do with oil or Iran... If Russia gets away with this and it probably will since bush minor has no power left other than to send in Rice and aid... it will start slowly gobbling up each one of its former regions.

This is nothing less than an attempt by Russia to re-establish its empire.

The Czars have returned.

Uh... big difference between Iraq- not much of a 'nation' with a ruthless dictator and sponser of terror v.s. a democratic republic that is getting invaded, even through a cease fire.

reply to post by grover


grover, I just S&F'd a new thread post, don't know how to reference it except by title....USA is behind the Russian-Georgia War

It's compelling....maybe inflammatory....we will see.

edit to correct title

[edit on 8/14/0808 by weedwhacker]

reply to post by Purgatory


It was pretty clear that McCain qualified this statement in his following sentence, relating to determining where the blame ultimately lies. In other words, invasions don't occur without provocation or otherwise for a good reason. Its pretty obvious that he wasn't intending to say that invasions don't occur, period.

Whatever though, soundbytes trump reality in politics. Its McCain's fault for phrasing it in a way that could be used against him, even if its not being taken in proper context.

Originally posted by grover
Mark my word the invasion of Georgia has absolutely nothing to do with a break away provience or anything like that... it has nothing to do with oil or Iran... If Russia gets away with this and it probably will since bush minor has no power left other than to send in Rice and aid... it will start slowly gobbling up each one of its former regions.

This is nothing less than an attempt by Russia to re-establish its empire.

The Czars have returned.

So what, it would have been better if Georgia had bombed South Ossetia to submission and occupied it by force while Nato swept the issue under the rug?

reply to post by vor78


vor, you didn't mention the other sentence from McCain to help clarify your position here...that one part was taken out of context.

No matter...it's ultimately about politics. Well, and resources (read that as 'oil')

But diplomacy at the barrel of a gun.....it's not much different from fighting over territory (and resources) when all we early, naked apes, only had were sticks and stones. The concept is the same. FIGHT!!! KILL!!! WIN!!! at all costs!!!!

It is simian behavior....not rational. Likely other factors, as well....racial / religious differences, etc. I'd like to learn more about the dynamics ot the region. It's very near Turkey and Armenia....anyone see my point here????

"McCain: "In The 21st Century Nations Don't Invade Other Nations"

^ and people want to vote for this guy..........


Bahh .. Im not all that hep on Obama ether but DAMN .. It takes some real ignorance to come out and say this.

I wish there was a presidential candidate who was worth voting for.. I can not remember the last time it was a clear cut decision and not one where you have to try and pick the lessor of two evils.

reply to post by wolfmanjack


I starred that, wolfman.

You are succinct, and right on with how I'm viewing this debacle of the Quadrennial Election Cycle....

I am thinking, however.....that at least, to the rest of the world, having a President that is so different from all of the others....hate to seem racial here, not intended to be....but frankly, Obama as a 'face' for this country will likely elevate others' impressions of this nation. Until or unless he screws it up really badly.....but that seems highly unlikely.

A change of direction is needed, at least in the politics of the USA. Damn! I wrote that, and just realized my brain may have been infected with 'Obamaism'. Or, others will think so. I assure, it is not.

I saw many, many better candidates during the primaries....but, now that he's there, I admire Obama's poise and demeanor. He's got the 'picture-perfect' family....and that bugs me a bit. BUT....we really only have TWO choices....face it. You can write in Ron Paul or Dennis Kucinich...or Mickey Mouse (my personal fave), but from a percentage standpoint, won't make a difference in the ultimate outcome.

Some say that most recent elections are pre-determined....and if true, it bodes not well for our Nation.

'My Friends'....(to quote McCain) I say this in all earnestness. Keep a sharp eye on THIS election, and pay particular attention to the possiblity of fraud. AND listen to each candidate....from multiple 'news' sources....not just the FNC/Murdoch Empire (cue the Darth Vader theme song....)

OK, sorry...showed one of my biases....and, this is directed at the Americans in the audience, naturally. I find that some of our great friends from around the world see things differently, since they have access to different perspectives....(meaning, News sources)

I love to see your POVs!!!

Thanks for reading.

Originally posted by vor78
It was pretty clear that McCain qualified this statement in his following sentence, relating to determining where the blame ultimately lies. In other words, invasions don't occur without provocation or otherwise for a good reason. Its pretty obvious that he wasn't intending to say that invasions don't occur, period.

The onus is on the potential POTUS to express his views on these tragic and complex events in a clear and comprehensible manner. He didn't do that, and I believe his "qualifications" were an afterthought in the first place.

reply to post by buddhasystem


Not sure how to word this....point on, or 'spot on' as the British might say, Buddha!

I spew words, and you manage to be succnct, and to the point....razor sharp!!

I think I'm getting better, though.....self-editing helps....a bit....

So, four sentences to say I gave you a star.....and as to the topic, well....I'd try to go there, but I exhausted myself on the post just above.....

reply to post by merka


Its not what Russia did that is telling... its the scale in which it did it that speaks volumes about its intentions.

reply to post by grover


Russia was attacked, Russia spanked the attacker. Hell when Afganistan attacked America we invaded TWO countries. At least Russia stuck with the country that attacked it.

Also, Russia is a Stable Government that we can use diplomacy with. Of course that doesn't mean much since Diplomacy doesn't make Halliburton money.

[edit on 15-8-2008 by Krieger]