I know, none of this crap effects my vote.  I am going dem, because I am a libertarian (little 'l') who is tired of government (1)overspending on war, (2)being in the pockets oil and medical services, and (3)horrible out-dated conservative foreign policy.

1. If they are gonna spend all that money, it might as well be on something that benefits citizens, instead of kills them.

2. Yes democrats are also in the pockets of big companies, but their divided because they owe a lot of their funding to a wider variety of interest groups.  A divided interest is better than a concentrated one.

3. McCain on the UN: Start a League of Democracies and ignore the U.N.

WTF?  Like minded international bodies/alliances produced World War I.  U.S. not participating in LoN exacerbated World War II. USSR boycott of the UN lead to the Korean War.

History does, indeed, repeat itself.

The issue of pregnancies, DWI's (Palin), leaving a first wife for a younger mistress, drunkenness in college (McCain), an outrageous church-that scares the white folk (Obama), and a riches to rags to riches family (Biden) are all amusing and all small potatoes in this big batch of Vodka that we call the 2008 Presidential Election of the United States of America.

Fun, Fun, Fun.

Wow, I didn't know McCain said that about the U.N. That's pretty wacko. Why would we want an international group of countries that are all the same?

Because then ol' Johnny might have a chance to finally win that international coalition Twister contest. .

He claims that those fucking East Germans cheat every year.

In all fairness he did rescind the plan, it went from giving the U.N. the cold shoulder and building up a democratic alliance to making a NATO like alliance.

The point: Create an eastern European Alliance to make up for a crumbling NATO and strengthening Russia.

The problem: It will just agitate Russia other close not-so-friendly groups and make confrontation more likely.

The element that makes the whole argument moot: If anything happens, these countries will align anyway.

Their natural habitat, the Discotec, just makes them naturally good at shifting their hips.

Tell that to Armenia and the other south caucaus states.

If anything happens what will happen is what happened there and in georiga.  Everyone will ignore them.

Alliances that the bigger nations can't turn their backs on are the only security you can get.

Which is why NATO kept stalling Georgia in the first place, they knew Russia might invade.

Georgia is the one who violated their agreement, allowing Russia to use force.

Despite all the Western news, why do you think there are no serious U.N., WTO, NATO or other international discussions or investigations?

Georgia overstepped and suffered the consequences.

Actually the Russians broke the ceasefire first, by using larger guns.

Also the Ossetians were the ones attacking first, and lets not forget the Russians kept large masses of troops there for the last two months specifically to move it.

You should note that while everyone claims Georgia started problems on the 7th.

Wounded georgians in large numbers were being treated on the 6th.

Interesting article on it.... and generally russia's culpability in the entire situation which shows why russian peacekeepers in the area was just a bad idea in the first place.

http://www.michaeltotten.com/archives/2008/08/the-truth-about-1.php

Sorry, I was just trying to play devil's advocate.  My real point was, that it's a lot more complicated than "Russians Bad".

It's more complicated sure... however the fact still remains that Russia moved, and the EU, NATO and the US blinked.

Which isn't surprsing since that's what happens in the area.  Russia weakens the former sattelite states and nobody does anything about it.

The US might do similar in such circumstances, though i'd like to think we were past the point to where we would do it to democracies.

Regardless, the truth is... without these treaties the small countries are outright screwed.