Gallup Tracking Poll Thread [Obama vs McCain]

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

I never said McCain didn't perform better mid-week, I'm just mocking J. J. (who in mind has clearly never left the second grade) for his prediction that McCain would lead mid-week (LAST week) if there was no VP announcement.

You were wrong J. J. Do you deny that? McCain doesn't lead. So your prediction was idiotic and a load of crap.

[Eraserhead]

To be fair, J.J.'s predictions rarely ever materialize.

[J. J.]

I never said McCain didn't perform better mid-week, I'm just mocking J. J. (who in mind has clearly never left the second grade) for his prediction that McCain would lead mid-week (LAST week) if there was no VP announcement.

You were wrong J. J. Do you deny that? McCain doesn't lead. So your prediction was idiotic and a load of crap.

I said that there is a trend and, looking back at last week it looked like a high Obama sample in there.

BRTD, you were the one complaining about me saying that.  BRTD, being a hack and a hypocrite at the same time isn't a good combination.  Don't take my word for it; just ask John Edwards.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

...and McCain still doesn't lead.

[Democratic Hawk]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

[Keystone Phil]

Just for you, Hawk...

[Sam Spade]

bumping around...

[CARLHAYDEN]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

[Dan the Roman]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.

[J. J.]

This is the midweek bump for McCain.  Tomorrow, we should see something with a weekend sample in it (Friday's numbers).  It probably[/b] has little to do with the race and more to do with how Gallup gets its sample.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!

[elcorazon]

the issue is not whether to oppose aggression.  the issue is who is the aggressor.

I suppose you also believe that it would have been easy to oppose the us invasion of iraq because clearly, we were the aggressor.  Unfortunately, life and aggression and war is never that simple.

[Dan the Roman]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)
 The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!

Kinda funny because I worked at Hudson, which is not known as a stronghold of leftist thought. It was mostly people who actually knew facts

A. About the situation, other than "OMG a country has Russian troops marching in, Hitler has come back from the dead, appeasement, Chamblerain, look how smart I am, I am making reference to historical events I don't understand"

B. About our military options and lack thereof

C. The position of every other country in the world which thought that the Georgians started it and would not have backed a President McCain in support of Georgia.

I'm not an advocate for appeasement. There is however a time and place to fight and a time and place not to. As a practical matter there is nothing the US can do about Georgia. It is within Russia's sphere of influence, and if Russia wants to occupy there is nothing we can do. Should we have threatened nuclear war with Russia when they moved into Hungary in 1956? Was Eisenhower engaging in appeasement when he stood back? If McCain had been President during the Cold War we might have stood against aggression all cases, but you and I would be dead right now because McCain would have blown the world to kingdom come over Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, or Cuba.

For a President I have something I call the Cuban Missile Crisis test. The question is if blank were President in 1962, would we be dead, red, or safe in bed. With McCain, he seems determined to prove to me and everyone else that we would end up dead. With Obama, he strikes me as the person who would talk to Khrushchev and realize that this crisis is not worth destroying the planet.

 Furthermore, McCain has no idea of how he would actually go about standing up to aggression. Notice he talks about how we have to stand up, but he has no suggestions on how we actually could have done anything. All he suggests is that kick Russia out of the G8. First of all that would never happen because Europe would not go along. Second, if McCain succeeded, all he would do is destroy the G8, which is influential because it includes the world's major powers.

CarlHayden, not to mean any offense, but how would you have "stood up against aggression" in this case? We have heard a lot of posters urging us to do so, and a lot of attacks on those of us who feel this is domestic posturing as appeasers, so what actions would you recommend us taking.

And if we are not actually able to take any effective action, wouldn't John McCain's ultimatum to Russia end up humiliating the United States if McCain talked a big game but then had to back down because he was incapable of doing anything?

[Fmr. Pres. Duke]

Friday, August 15, 2008

Obama - 44% (-2)
McCain - 44% (+1)

The Aug. 12-14 polling shows a slight dip in Obama's support, which had ranged between 46% and 48% (averaging 47%) in August. McCain has averaged 43% support among registered voters so far in August. Thus, the closer margin seen in today's results is due more to movement away from Obama than toward McCain. Twelve percent of registered voters now say they are undecided or supporting another candidate, which is on the high end of what Gallup has measured this year.

Voter preferences have been closely divided between Obama and McCain in each of the last three individual nights of polling, underscoring the notion that the race has tightened for the moment. This could to some degree reflect Obama's absence from the campaign trail while he vacations in Hawaii. He will return to the spotlight over the next few weeks upon naming his vice presidential running mate and accepting his party's nomination for president at the Democratic national convention, and both events have typically been associated with a bounce in support for a presidential candidate.

On Thursday, the Obama and Hillary Clinton campaigns announced an agreement to put her name into nomination for president at the convention. Given that the race has been tight for the past few days, it is unlikely this announcement is related to any change in Obama's support.

Since early June when Obama clinched the nomination, he has averaged a three percentage point advantage over McCain in Gallup Poll Daily tracking.

[Eraserhead]

Too bad he's actually moving up in Rasmussen's polling.

It's still summer folks. Rest easy.

[CARLHAYDEN]

.[/quote]

I suspect that the combination of Obama's feckless statements on the Russian invasion of Georgia, coupled with McCain's superlative statements on the same matter has resulted in McCain's closing the gap.
[/quote]

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.
[/quote]

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!
[/quote]

Kinda funny because I worked at Hudson, which is not known as a stronghold of leftist thought. It was mostly people who actually knew facts

A. About the situation, other than "OMG a country has Russian troops marching in, Hitler has come back from the dead, appeasement, Chamblerain, look how smart I am, I am making reference to historical events I don't understand"

B. About our military options and lack thereof

C. The position of every other country in the world which thought that the Georgians started it and would not have backed a President McCain in support of Georgia.

I'm not an advocate for appeasement. There is however a time and place to fight and a time and place not to. As a practical matter there is nothing the US can do about Georgia. It is within Russia's sphere of influence, and if Russia wants to occupy there is nothing we can do. Should we have threatened nuclear war with Russia when they moved into Hungary in 1956? Was Eisenhower engaging in appeasement when he stood back? If McCain had been President during the Cold War we might have stood against aggression all cases, but you and I would be dead right now because McCain would have blown the world to kingdom come over Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, or Cuba.

For a President I have something I call the Cuban Missile Crisis test. The question is if blank were President in 1962, would we be dead, red, or safe in bed. With McCain, he seems determined to prove to me and everyone else that we would end up dead. With Obama, he strikes me as the person who would talk to Khrushchev and realize that this crisis is not worth destroying the planet.

 Furthermore, McCain has no idea of how he would actually go about standing up to aggression. Notice he talks about how we have to stand up, but he has no suggestions on how we actually could have done anything. All he suggests is that kick Russia out of the G8. First of all that would never happen because Europe would not go along. Second, if McCain succeeded, all he would do is destroy the G8, which is influential because it includes the world's major powers.

CarlHayden, not to mean any offense, but how would you have "stood up against aggression" in this case? We have heard a lot of posters urging us to do so, and a lot of attacks on those of us who feel this is domestic posturing as appeasers, so what actions would you recommend us taking.

And if we are not actually able to take any effective action, wouldn't John McCain's ultimatum to Russia end up humiliating the United States if McCain talked a big game but then had to back down because he was incapable of doing anything?
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.

[Dan the Roman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.
[/quote]

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!
[/quote]

Kinda funny because I worked at Hudson, which is not known as a stronghold of leftist thought. It was mostly people who actually knew facts

A. About the situation, other than "OMG a country has Russian troops marching in, Hitler has come back from the dead, appeasement, Chamblerain, look how smart I am, I am making reference to historical events I don't understand"

B. About our military options and lack thereof

C. The position of every other country in the world which thought that the Georgians started it and would not have backed a President McCain in support of Georgia.

I'm not an advocate for appeasement. There is however a time and place to fight and a time and place not to. As a practical matter there is nothing the US can do about Georgia. It is within Russia's sphere of influence, and if Russia wants to occupy there is nothing we can do. Should we have threatened nuclear war with Russia when they moved into Hungary in 1956? Was Eisenhower engaging in appeasement when he stood back? If McCain had been President during the Cold War we might have stood against aggression all cases, but you and I would be dead right now because McCain would have blown the world to kingdom come over Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, or Cuba.

For a President I have something I call the Cuban Missile Crisis test. The question is if blank were President in 1962, would we be dead, red, or safe in bed. With McCain, he seems determined to prove to me and everyone else that we would end up dead. With Obama, he strikes me as the person who would talk to Khrushchev and realize that this crisis is not worth destroying the planet.

 Furthermore, McCain has no idea of how he would actually go about standing up to aggression. Notice he talks about how we have to stand up, but he has no suggestions on how we actually could have done anything. All he suggests is that kick Russia out of the G8. First of all that would never happen because Europe would not go along. Second, if McCain succeeded, all he would do is destroy the G8, which is influential because it includes the world's major powers.

CarlHayden, not to mean any offense, but how would you have "stood up against aggression" in this case? We have heard a lot of posters urging us to do so, and a lot of attacks on those of us who feel this is domestic posturing as appeasers, so what actions would you recommend us taking.

And if we are not actually able to take any effective action, wouldn't John McCain's ultimatum to Russia end up humiliating the United States if McCain talked a big game but then had to back down because he was incapable of doing anything?
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.


[/quote]
[/quote]
Did any of those Eastern European nations actually do anything? No. And quite frankly, the fact that we were arming Georgia is a major reason why Putin felt the need to punish them. There is no amount of armerments short of nukes that we could give to Georgia that would stop Russia from doing what it likes with them if it really wanted to. If Georgia had had 500 tanks instead of 200 it would might have let them hang on for another day against Russia's 6000. I have thought through this suggestion, and I have taken into account matters of scale, something that none of its proponents have done.

As to your point that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. It is not right, it is not moral, and is not something we should be happy about, but Russia can pretty much do whatever it likes in the Caucuses and we can't do damn thing about it if they really want to.

If Russia had moved against the Ukraine or Poland the situation would be different. Both could be armed to the point where they could resist Russian aggression. But arguing that we could arm Georgia to that point is like arguing that the Soviet Union could have armed Grenada to the point where it could have resisted a US attack. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviets could have caused trouble elseware(ie. Berlin) but they concluded(correctly) that it was not worth it. Would you have argued that Soviets stand up to US aggression in Grenada in 1983? Of Course not because there was nothing they could reasonably do. Ditto for us.

Secondly, appeasement is a meaningless word, thrown around by people who just want to score political points or lack the capcity for critical thought. The problem with what Chamberlain did was not sitting down with his enemy per se, but sitting down with an enemy who was irrational and could not be reasoned with. He made the same mistake you are making, and McCain is making. He fought the last war.

The greatest experience of Chamberlain's life had been the first world war where one fourth of the youth of England had been slaughtered for no reason. Had Prime Minister Asquith proposed a conference of European Heads of State in Munich in August of 1914, 20 million lives would have been saved. What Chamberlain did not grasp was that what was the right policy in 1914 was the wrong policy in 1938, and people couldn't reason with Hitler.

Putin is not Hitler. He is doing nothing in Georgia that no other rational Russian leader would do. Any Russian leader is going to view Georgia as being within their sphere of influence, and is not going to take kindly to Georgia allying with Russia's enemies and arming itself. Putin has no desire to conquer or run Georgia. He simply wants Georgia to act like a small country on Russia's borders. The US giving them arms, as you have suggested they do, only forces Putin, or any other Russian leader to make an example of them.

Without a doubt, Austria-Hungary was the agressor against Serbia and started World War I. But to say that the Serbs had their own house in order is insane. They did a whole lot to provoke what they got. Yeah, they had legitimate nationalist motives for wanting to retake Bosnia, but it was still provocation. And Saashkivali is not some paragon of virtue. He rigged his last election, throws journalists in prison, and shut down all the independent TV stations in his country. In fact he is a mirror image of Putin domestically.

[Dan the Roman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Perhaps, but those same reckless statements ensured that many people who actually follow the region will never vote for them. I know several people at the think tank where I worked switched their votes to Obama in response.

There was nothing superlative about McCain's remarks. It is pathetically easy to take a hardline stance on anything to score cheap political points provided you don't care about the consequences.
[/quote]

Sorry Dave, but you're sounding a lot like Neville Chamberlin.

It seems to me you work at a NO THINKING tank staffed by  apologists for aggression (and yes, I would expect the to support Obama who would never oppose aggression).

It is morally easy to oppose aggression, and it is immoral and stupid to apologize for it.

The consequences of appeasement should be obvious to anyone with and IQ above that of a rock.

What happened to you Dave, once you were a reasonable person, now you an advocate of appeasement.

That's really pathetic!
[/quote]

Kinda funny because I worked at Hudson, which is not known as a stronghold of leftist thought. It was mostly people who actually knew facts

A. About the situation, other than "OMG a country has Russian troops marching in, Hitler has come back from the dead, appeasement, Chamblerain, look how smart I am, I am making reference to historical events I don't understand"

B. About our military options and lack thereof

C. The position of every other country in the world which thought that the Georgians started it and would not have backed a President McCain in support of Georgia.

I'm not an advocate for appeasement. There is however a time and place to fight and a time and place not to. As a practical matter there is nothing the US can do about Georgia. It is within Russia's sphere of influence, and if Russia wants to occupy there is nothing we can do. Should we have threatened nuclear war with Russia when they moved into Hungary in 1956? Was Eisenhower engaging in appeasement when he stood back? If McCain had been President during the Cold War we might have stood against aggression all cases, but you and I would be dead right now because McCain would have blown the world to kingdom come over Hungary, or Czechoslovakia, or Afghanistan, or Cuba.

For a President I have something I call the Cuban Missile Crisis test. The question is if blank were President in 1962, would we be dead, red, or safe in bed. With McCain, he seems determined to prove to me and everyone else that we would end up dead. With Obama, he strikes me as the person who would talk to Khrushchev and realize that this crisis is not worth destroying the planet.

 Furthermore, McCain has no idea of how he would actually go about standing up to aggression. Notice he talks about how we have to stand up, but he has no suggestions on how we actually could have done anything. All he suggests is that kick Russia out of the G8. First of all that would never happen because Europe would not go along. Second, if McCain succeeded, all he would do is destroy the G8, which is influential because it includes the world's major powers.

CarlHayden, not to mean any offense, but how would you have "stood up against aggression" in this case? We have heard a lot of posters urging us to do so, and a lot of attacks on those of us who feel this is domestic posturing as appeasers, so what actions would you recommend us taking.

And if we are not actually able to take any effective action, wouldn't John McCain's ultimatum to Russia end up humiliating the United States if McCain talked a big game but then had to back down because he was incapable of doing anything?
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.


[/quote]
Did any of those Eastern European nations actually do anything? No. And quite frankly, the fact that we were arming Georgia is a major reason why Putin felt the need to punish them. There is no amount of armerments short of nukes that we could give to Georgia that would stop Russia from doing what it likes with them if it really wanted to. If Georgia had had 500 tanks instead of 200 it would might have let them hang on for another day against Russia's 6000. I have thought through this suggestion, and I have taken into account matters of scale, something that none of its proponents have done.

As to your point that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. It is not right, it is not moral, and is not something we should be happy about, but Russia can pretty much do whatever it likes in the Caucuses and we can't do damn thing about it if they really want to.

If Russia had moved against the Ukraine or Poland the situation would be different. Both could be armed to the point where they could resist Russian aggression. But arguing that we could arm Georgia to that point is like arguing that the Soviet Union could have armed Grenada to the point where it could have resisted a US attack. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviets could have caused trouble elseware(ie. Berlin) but they concluded(correctly) that it was not worth it. Would you have argued that Soviets stand up to US aggression in Grenada in 1983? Of Course not because there was nothing they could reasonably do. Ditto for us.

Secondly, appeasement is a meaningless word, thrown around by people who just want to score political points or lack the capcity for critical thought. The problem with what Chamberlain did was not sitting down with his enemy per se, but sitting down with an enemy who was irrational and could not be reasoned with. He made the same mistake you are making, and McCain is making. He fought the last war.

The greatest experience of Chamberlain's life had been the first world war where one fourth of the youth of England had been slaughtered for no reason. Had Prime Minister Asquith proposed a conference of European Heads of State in Munich in August of 1914, 20 million lives would have been saved. What Chamberlain did not grasp was that what was the right policy in 1914 was the wrong policy in 1938, and people couldn't reason with Hitler.

Putin is not Hitler. He is doing nothing in Georgia that no other rational Russian leader would do. Any Russian leader is going to view Georgia as being within their sphere of influence, and is not going to take kindly to Georgia allying with Russia's enemies and arming itself. Putin has no desire to conquer or run Georgia. He simply wants Georgia to act like a small country on Russia's borders. The US giving them arms, as you have suggested they do, only forces Putin, or any other Russian leader to make an example of them.

Without a doubt, Austria-Hungary was the agressor against Serbia and started World War I. But to say that the Serbs had their own house in order is insane. They did a whole lot to provoke what they got. Yeah, they had legitimate nationalist motives for wanting to retake Bosnia, but it was still provocation. And Saashkivali is not some paragon of virtue. He rigged his last election, throws journalists in prison, and shut down all the independent TV stations in his country. In fact he is a mirror image of Putin domestically.

[Tender Branson]

What's the matter with Gallup today ? No Poll ?

[CARLHAYDEN]

 
[/quote]

First, yes you are an advocate of appeasement.  Your position, stripped of its empty rhetoric, amounts to any country bordering Russia is in their "sphere of influence," and they can invade those countries any time they want to with impunity.

Second, you engage in a classic logical fallacy of either the United States appeasing the Russians, or nuclear war.  However, thoughtful people recognize a range of alternatives including providing would be victims of Russian aggression the means of defending themselves.  Now I realize this thought never occured to YOU.  I have repeatedly advocated this method.

Third, people (well not in your case) not nations "think."  Further, while I understand that you may believe that the Georgians invaded Russia, the fact is that the Russians invaded Georgia.  Oh, and you blanket statement that all nations "think" as you do is both fallacious and false.  A number of eastern european heads of state stood with Georgia in a public statement a few days ago which you seemed to have missed.


[/quote]
[/quote]
Did any of those Eastern European nations actually do anything? No. And quite frankly, the fact that we were arming Georgia is a major reason why Putin felt the need to punish them. There is no amount of armerments short of nukes that we could give to Georgia that would stop Russia from doing what it likes with them if it really wanted to. If Georgia had had 500 tanks instead of 200 it would might have let them hang on for another day against Russia's 6000. I have thought through this suggestion, and I have taken into account matters of scale, something that none of its proponents have done.

As to your point that

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Pretty much. It is not right, it is not moral, and is not something we should be happy about, but Russia can pretty much do whatever it likes in the Caucuses and we can't do damn thing about it if they really want to.

If Russia had moved against the Ukraine or Poland the situation would be different. Both could be armed to the point where they could resist Russian aggression. But arguing that we could arm Georgia to that point is like arguing that the Soviet Union could have armed Grenada to the point where it could have resisted a US attack. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviets could have caused trouble elseware(ie. Berlin) but they concluded(correctly) that it was not worth it. Would you have argued that Soviets stand up to US aggression in Grenada in 1983? Of Course not because there was nothing they could reasonably do. Ditto for us.

Secondly, appeasement is a meaningless word, thrown around by people who just want to score political points or lack the capcity for critical thought. The problem with what Chamberlain did was not sitting down with his enemy per se, but sitting down with an enemy who was irrational and could not be reasoned with. He made the same mistake you are making, and McCain is making. He fought the last war.

The greatest experience of Chamberlain's life had been the first world war where one fourth of the youth of England had been slaughtered for no reason. Had Prime Minister Asquith proposed a conference of European Heads of State in Munich in August of 1914, 20 million lives would have been saved. What Chamberlain did not grasp was that what was the right policy in 1914 was the wrong policy in 1938, and people couldn't reason with Hitler.

Putin is not Hitler. He is doing nothing in Georgia that no other rational Russian leader would do. Any Russian leader is going to view Georgia as being within their sphere of influence, and is not going to take kindly to Georgia allying with Russia's enemies and arming itself. Putin has no desire to conquer or run Georgia. He simply wants Georgia to act like a small country on Russia's borders. The US giving them arms, as you have suggested they do, only forces Putin, or any other Russian leader to make an example of them.

Without a doubt, Austria-Hungary was the agressor against Serbia and started World War I. But to say that the Serbs had their own house in order is insane. They did a whole lot to provoke what they got. Yeah, they had legitimate nationalist motives for wanting to retake Bosnia, but it was still provocation. And Saashkivali is not some paragon of virtue. He rigged his last election, throws journalists in prison, and shut down all the independent TV stations in his country. In fact he is a mirror image of Putin domestically.
[/quote]

First, did the nations which I (and now you, cited) oh yes, you previously said the did not exist, have the missles to provide to Georgia?  Since they did not, could that explain why they acted as they did?  Or it that concept to difficult for you, an advocate of appeasement? 

Oh, and thanks for finally admitting you are an advocate of appeasement.

Now, apparently you are grossly ignorant of Russian combat capabilities, and have a mistaken notion that short of nuclear war they are unstoppable.  The truth is that with the antitank and antiaircraft missles I have repeatedly cited, the Russians could not have sucessfully conquired Georgia, which is what they are doing right now!

Finally, your defense of Putin is not unexpected!  Let me hear your defense of the bank robbery by the Russians covered by The Sun as another example of what you approve and defend.

[Dan the Roman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am advocate of treating every situation on its own merits, which is something so-called Hawks are incapable of. If suggesting that it might have made sense for the Kaiser, Asquith, Franz Josef and the Czar to sit down in 1914 so the senseless slaughter of millions, and the holocaust and other slaughters that emanated from that one did not happen, is appeasement then appeasement in certain cases is the only policy a rational human being could support. Why, because you presume that every fight has an aggressor to be resisted, which is far from true.

Second, no amount of anti-tank missiles is going to allow 18,000 Georgians stand up against 200,000 Russians. The numbers are far too skewed. In fact, the 18,000 Georgians are armed with top of the line Israeli weaponry, and that was how they did last as long as they did. The Russians are not unstoppable, they are unstoppable by Georgia alone, just as in 1940, the Germans were unstoppable by Denmark. And really, the net result of allowing them to slow down tank forces would simply have been increased Russian airstrikes. Finally the Georgians were at a disadvantage because the local people supported Russia and hitting them from the rear.

As to my defense of Putin if you can call it that, you Carlhayden, if you were Russian, would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia. Why? because it is the natural position of any Russian leader not to tolerate small countries on your borders aligning with your enemies. We joined World War I because Germany was playing games in Mexico. Was our invasion of Mexico in 1916 an aggression to be resisted. Rather than thinking seriously about any of this you gives us the same chicken hawk platitudes about "appeasement" or "resisting aggression" that we get from people who know nothing about the conflict or war in general.

In regards to your herring about Russian troops, I will no more defend the behavior of drunken Russian conscripts in Georgia than I will defend the raping and killings carried out by professional American trained Georgian troops in South Ossetia. Bad stuff happens in war, especially when ethnic hatred is involved.

Please watch this video to get an idea of how unclear it is who the aggressors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

[CARLHAYDEN]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am advocate of treating every situation on its own merits, which is something so-called Hawks are incapable of. If suggesting that it might have made sense for the Kaiser, Asquith, Franz Josef and the Czar to sit down in 1914 so the senseless slaughter of millions, and the holocaust and other slaughters that emanated from that one did not happen, is appeasement then appeasement in certain cases is the only policy a rational human being could support. Why, because you presume that every fight has an aggressor to be resisted, which is far from true.

Second, no amount of anti-tank missiles is going to allow 18,000 Georgians stand up against 200,000 Russians. The numbers are far too skewed. In fact, the 18,000 Georgians are armed with top of the line Israeli weaponry, and that was how they did last as long as they did. The Russians are not unstoppable, they are unstoppable by Georgia alone, just as in 1940, the Germans were unstoppable by Denmark. And really, the net result of allowing them to slow down tank forces would simply have been increased Russian airstrikes. Finally the Georgians were at a disadvantage because the local people supported Russia and hitting them from the rear.

As to my defense of Putin if you can call it that, you Carlhayden, if you were Russian, would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia. Why? because it is the natural position of any Russian leader not to tolerate small countries on your borders aligning with your enemies. We joined World War I because Germany was playing games in Mexico. Was our invasion of Mexico in 1916 an aggression to be resisted. Rather than thinking seriously about any of this you gives us the same chicken hawk platitudes about "appeasement" or "resisting aggression" that we get from people who know nothing about the conflict or war in general.

In regards to your herring about Russian troops, I will no more defend the behavior of drunken Russian conscripts in Georgia than I will defend the raping and killings carried out by professional American trained Georgian troops in South Ossetia. Bad stuff happens in war, especially when ethnic hatred is involved.

Please watch this video to get an idea of how unclear it is who the aggressors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

First, you have the same solution to all situations of agression, i.e. appeasement.

Second, you invariably look hard to find any flaw in the victims of agression, even if manufactured propaganda, to find an excuse to sanction the agression. 

Third, since you are a self-proclaimed expert in military capabilities, perhaps you will be so kind as to provide a brief explanation of your military service.

Fourth, you engage in another liberal stupdity when you proclaim that "of you were a Russain (you) would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia."  Do you get to this conclusion from "channeling" a la Edwards, or simply make it up, as seems to be the case with so much you post.

Fifth, did you fail to note that in addition to antitank missles, I also specified SAMs, or did you decide to omit that when asserting that stopping the Russian tanks would allow you to assert they would simply use aircraft.  Oh, and perhaps you haven't heard, but, they are using aircraft for strikes, even with the tanks.

Sixth, again you fail to comprehend the armament possessed by the Georgians.  Excellent small arms does not equate high quality antitank and SAMs.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Oh, and to correct the false claims of the appeasement advocates here, I suggest reading the following:

The Pain Game
A military response to Russia's aggression?
by Stuart Koehl
08/14/2008 8:15:00 PM

Conventional wisdom has rapidly hardened around the proposition that there is no practical military response to the Russian invasion of Georgia. In fact, if the Georgians were inclined to fight, there is quite a lot they could do militarily, and in a way that would not directly involve U.S. or NATO forces. To understand how this military option would work, some background is required.

Most people have been grossly exaggerating Russian military strength and prowess in this exercise, obviously one long in the planning, and actually involving relatively small forces. By all accounts, the Russian "58th Army" has invaded Georgian territory with about 500 tanks and an equal number of infantry fighting vehicles--the equivalent of roughly two armored divisions. That's pretty small beer, really, but adequate to handle a smaller Georgian army largely dispersed to deal with counter-guerrilla operations.

A close examination of video and photos of the Russian force also reveals top of the line equipment--late model T-80 and T-90 main battle tanks, and BMP-2 IFVs. Now, the Caucasus Military District is something of a backwater, home of Category II and Category III divisions, most of which are kept below strength and equipped with older systems, such as the T-72 MBT. On the other hand, the Category I divisions are kept close to Moscow and the western military districts, because that is where the main threat is perceived, and also because that's much better terrain for tank warfare. Obviously, the Russian army carefully transferred the forces for  this operation from central Russia all the way to the Caucasus--in secret--and also accompanied the move with a comprehensive maskirovka intended to put us at our ease (e.g., Putin did go to the Olympic opening ceremonies, after all).

From this we can infer what most experts already know--that the Russian army, though still numerically large, has relatively few competent, deployable formations--there are the airborne divisions and the air assault brigades, and a few tank and motor-rifle divisions, but not much else. Similarly, the Russian air force doesn't have very many fully operational aircraft or deep reserves of fuel, spare parts and munitions. This invasion has probably eaten deeply into Russian operations and maintenance funding, to say nothing of its war reserve stockpiles of ordnance and equipment. Russia must have bet on a short and fairly bloodless war, because it cannot afford--militarily or politically--a protracted slog. Not only doesn't it have the equipment to do so, but it doesn't have enough highly trained troops to sustain heavy casualties. The Russian military consists of a small, diamond-hard point on the end of a wooden stick. If the point shatters or wears down, you are left fighting the stick. (It should be noted that Ralph Peters, writing in the New York Post, has been scathing in his assessment of the Russian army's performance in Georgia, so by Western standards even the best of the Russian army would be considered rather mediocre).

The question is how to wear it down. Georgia is a mountainous country, with few good roads and many choke points. A dismounted guerrilla or light infantry force can hold up a road-bound armored force and inflict disproportionate casualties, if properly equipped and led. Unfortunately, the Georgian Army was neither, in this particular instance. Rather, it was trained and equipped the fight the war it had--an insurgency by separatist guerrillas, requiring mostly infantry and small arms. Confronted by tanks and close support aircraft and helicopters, the Georgian forces had little choice but to run.


 

[Dan the Roman]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am advocate of treating every situation on its own merits, which is something so-called Hawks are incapable of. If suggesting that it might have made sense for the Kaiser, Asquith, Franz Josef and the Czar to sit down in 1914 so the senseless slaughter of millions, and the holocaust and other slaughters that emanated from that one did not happen, is appeasement then appeasement in certain cases is the only policy a rational human being could support. Why, because you presume that every fight has an aggressor to be resisted, which is far from true.

Second, no amount of anti-tank missiles is going to allow 18,000 Georgians stand up against 200,000 Russians. The numbers are far too skewed. In fact, the 18,000 Georgians are armed with top of the line Israeli weaponry, and that was how they did last as long as they did. The Russians are not unstoppable, they are unstoppable by Georgia alone, just as in 1940, the Germans were unstoppable by Denmark. And really, the net result of allowing them to slow down tank forces would simply have been increased Russian airstrikes. Finally the Georgians were at a disadvantage because the local people supported Russia and hitting them from the rear.

As to my defense of Putin if you can call it that, you Carlhayden, if you were Russian, would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia. Why? because it is the natural position of any Russian leader not to tolerate small countries on your borders aligning with your enemies. We joined World War I because Germany was playing games in Mexico. Was our invasion of Mexico in 1916 an aggression to be resisted. Rather than thinking seriously about any of this you gives us the same chicken hawk platitudes about "appeasement" or "resisting aggression" that we get from people who know nothing about the conflict or war in general.

In regards to your herring about Russian troops, I will no more defend the behavior of drunken Russian conscripts in Georgia than I will defend the raping and killings carried out by professional American trained Georgian troops in South Ossetia. Bad stuff happens in war, especially when ethnic hatred is involved.

Please watch this video to get an idea of how unclear it is who the aggressors are.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8XI2Chc6uQ

First, you have the same solution to all situations of agression, i.e. appeasement.

Second, you invariably look hard to find any flaw in the victims of agression, even if manufactured propaganda, to find an excuse to sanction the agression. 

Third, since you are a self-proclaimed expert in military capabilities, perhaps you will be so kind as to provide a brief explanation of your military service.

Fourth, you engage in another liberal stupdity when you proclaim that "of you were a Russain (you) would be the strongest advocate of conquering the whole of Georgia."  Do you get to this conclusion from "channeling" a la Edwards, or simply make it up, as seems to be the case with so much you post.

Fifth, did you fail to note that in addition to antitank missles, I also specified SAMs, or did you decide to omit that when asserting that stopping the Russian tanks would allow you to assert they would simply use aircraft.  Oh, and perhaps you haven't heard, but, they are using aircraft for strikes, even with the tanks.

Sixth, again you fail to comprehend the armament possessed by the Georgians.  Excellent small arms does not equate high quality antitank and SAMs.

First of all I have the same approach to every situation which is to look at the facts. You seem to have the same approach to every situation which is to blow stuff up regardless of justification. Mao, Stalin, and Hitler all exist because people in democratic states do exactly what you suggest. You have not addressed any example or point I raised. Would it have been a bad thing for people to have sat down in August of 1914? Was it a bad thing for Kennedy to talk with Kruschev in 1962 rather than simply invading Cuba?

Second, you have failed to rebut any facts or evidence. Perhaps all of the witnesses are faked? The South Ossetians all shot themselves perhaps? How is any of this evidence manufactured? There is a twelve year old girl on Fox News explaining how  Georgians burned her neighbors alive in a church, what evidence do you have other than assertion. Pherhaps the EU which says that the last Georgian elections were rigged. Perhaps the US State Department, which criticized our good friend the Georgian President for shutting down the independent press in Georgia and throwing journalists in jail? Is all of this propaganda.

Third, if it was so easy to arm small countries with hi-tech weapons and they could hold off anything, why is it that Taiwan needs US support. Wouldn't all Taiwan need be few anti-tank weapons and some SAMS and the Chinese military is neutralized. No, because there are issues of scale involved, and tiny countries  of 4 million people do not beat countries of 150 million that have vastly more resources. These magical weapons do not change that.

Finally I love how you call me a Liberal. I was until last month a registered Republican and vote for George Bush in 2004. I quit precisely because the party has been taken over by people with weak egos who are incapable of critical thought beyond generalities and like to talk to each other about how smart they are. That said I would still vote for Bush again right now over McCain any day of the week, possibly over Obama.

That said, I have heard no response to how this is the natural interest of any Russian government, and if Kasparov or Nemstov were running Russia and it was a beautiful liberal democracy there position would be exactly the same on South Ossetia, and was the same back in the 1990s when  Yeltsin ran stuff. Major powers do not let other powers set up puppet states on your borders. We would never have tolerated a Communist Mexico, no more than we were willing to tolerate a Pro-German Mexico in 1916.

Christ you are less rational on this than the folks on Freerepublic, who at least realize that if you poke a Bear in the eye with a red-hot poker consistently you will get burned.

[Dan the Roman]

I've read the weekly standard piece and it is as ridiculous as your claims. Giving the Georgians a few anti-tank weapons won't make a large difference, and Mr. Stuart Koehl also assumes the Russians would sit back and let them rearm. Notice that the Russian troops in Gori have been demolishing all of Georgia's military bases in the north of the country. Russia is clearly not going to give them a chance to do this.

Georgia is also a lot different than Afghanistan where the Russians were hated. The Russian troops are wanted in South Ossetia and Akhbazia, and if anyone would wind up facing a guerrilla war it would be the Georgians. They can't fade into the countryside that easily.

Furthermore, at the end of the day we won''t do it because it raises the prospects of the Russians arming Iran, which is not something we want and is quite frankly far more important to us. Koehl makes the same mistake neocons always make which is assuming the US can win everywhere at once, and therefore they don't differentiate between what is important(Iran, Baltics) and what is only important if the situation deteriorates(Georgia). If the cost of aiding Georgia is that Georgia is completely occupied/ or destroyed(the most likely outcome of Koehl's plan) and that Iran gets nukes is it really worth it to help a questionable regime recover territories where they are not wanted, and where they committed genocide last time they ran them(1992-1993).