This post is a commentary/continuation to Toms article listed below.
For any of you that may not have heard it, "We are all Georgians" was what came from McCain's regarding the Russian-Georgian dispute.
Regarding Glen Becks article posted by Tom, I do not doubt that Georgia is a more democratic state and has more similarities than Russia to America, and I don't doubt their very creation is inspiring and admirable. That being said, I also don't doubt that the president of Georgia, Saakashvili, is creating such an image as much as possible to gain American sympathy.
Honestly, McCain's foreign policy stance that I have seen so far may cost him my vote. If I don't vote for McCain, I certainly wouldn't vote for Obama because I hate his domestic policy. I guess I would have to abstain or vote 3rd party or something. What does he mean, "we are all Georgians"? Why does America have to police the world? What gives us the right? I don't care which county is more democratic or "freedom loving", why do we have to get involved in their land dispute? I honestly am afraid that if McCain were president right now, we would have troops in Georgia already. It reminds me of World War One, where millions of lives and decades of fighting came about by a dispute between Serbia and Austria-Hungary that the rest of the world had to get involved in. And then World War I quickly lead to the second World War. Does McCain realize the ramifications of taking sides in something like this, or is our "all powerful" military just going to fix everything?
Staying in Iraq is one thing - the fact is that we went in, probably too hastily - but now we are in, and I don't feel qualified to decide if or how long we stay. I feel like I have to trust the generals and diplomats on the ground to decide that one. But this Russia Georgia dispute is something very different, and very scary. Rush Limbaugh is calling Russia "the enemy" now. So do we look at every world dispute now, and take the side of the "more American" one?
I think history has shown the wisdom of George Washington's farewell address. Even though it is tempting to beat up the bully that steals lunch money on the playground, on a world level, it is a lot more complicated than that. Mingling in others affairs just ends up causing more problems for us and for them in the long run. All our problems in the middle east and elsewhere started from taking sides on smaller issues long ago. Even some of their own turmoil has been due to political disruptions by intervening foreign powers.
So yes, Russia is annoying, and appears to be a bully right now. Atrocities are happening and innocents are dying - as always. But we need to let them solve their own dispute. We are not Russians, and we are not Georgians, we are Americans - Who are on the other side of the world with no business whatsoever in either of their affairs.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Very interesting thoughts Hyrum. I don't have much to say except to agree with you. The only case in which I feel that the U.S. and others should interfere is when egregious human rights violations are occuring, like in Rwanda, the holocaust, perhaps now in Darfur. We should help defend the defenseless, but should not be involved in land disputes.
And its funny to me that we are calling Russia a bully, not saying that they aren't, but is just seems a bit like the pot calling the kettle black to me.
Good statement, Hyrum. McCain's militaristic philosophy is also one of the biggest reasons I do not wish to vote for him. On the debate last Friday, he continues to promote more interventionism. America has a big appetite for war and patriotism has been exploited into militarism. The Constitution was designed to be document to promote peace, not conflict.
To be honest, watching the debates last night made me reconsider McCain's stance on war. Perhaps my original post is a misrepresentation of McCain's positions compared to Obama. On Iraq, McCain and Obama are similar. Now that the troop surge ended up working, the democrats had to end up sticking their foot in their mouth. Yet Obama wants to send more troops into Afghanistan and was in favor of strikes on terrorist groups in Pakistan, where McCain wants to work with Pakistan economically. Regarding Russian and Georgia, they are about the same as well. All things considered, I have to conclude that I like McCain's foreign policy better then Obama's.
Although Obama did have better composure during the debates, I thought that McCain clearly won for one simple reason. He came off as the one that has the experience and knowledge and knows what he is talking about. After seeing that, I guess I have more fear of Obama being the loose cannon with foreign policy. After all, when Afghanistan and Iraq were being debated in congress he was still off doing community work in Chicago. McCain has been in there since the Cold War. If Obama were president, I get the feeling that he would at best, be a puppet on the strings of who knows what special interest groups.
Also, one thing that I don't understand about American politics. If someone can explain, I would appreciate it. So McCain suspends his campaign to work with congress on a financial emergency, and almost suspends a debate on foreign policy that he is projected to have the upper hand in. In the mean time, while McCain is trying to get things done, Obama rests up and gets prepped by his lawyers for the debates (which explains the better composure). During this time, everyone gets mad at McCain for suspending his campaign and for suggesting to reschedule the debate, and he ends up behind by a five point spread.
Does that make any sense?
I think the reason McCain got negative attention for "suspending" his campaign was because it seemed more like a political ploy than anything else. Obama was in D.C. working on the bailout as well, he just wasn't as dramatic about it. Also, I highly doubt that he wasn't preparing for the debate. From what I heard, he never actually made it into congress, he was hanging out at his campaign headquarters in Arlington the whole time, probably preparing. Obama is just a better debater, that has never been McCain's strong suit. He never came off well in the Republican primary debates either.
I don't disagree with you about Obama being a better debater, although neither of them are very good. Most political analysts were projecting that the topic of the night was McCain's strong point. That's the whole reason why Obama picked Biden as VP, to compliment his own inexperience, especially with foreign policy. That being the case, I don't see why everyone called it a political ploy.
I considered it a ploy because it wasn't necessary for him to "suspend" his campaign to work on the bailout. Obama was able to do just as much as McCain regarding the bailout with suspending his. It just seemed like an effort to be like "see, I love America more than that one does". It didn't feel sincere or necessary.
I was actually watching the news for several hours that day peripherally, up to the debates. McCain was working in Washington (cameras showed him coming in and out of congressional meetings), and Obama, after the initial meeting with Bush, flew to Missouri to taunt McCain for thinking of not coming down. Because we was in Washington instead of out doing Campaign meetings he suspended his campaign. Whether he did much or not is debatable, but I think everyone agreed he was trying to do everything he could. It could have been a ploy, but I didn't see any reason to assume so.
Post a Comment