Bush put's the lame in lame duck

Sounds like he's speaking to the UN, pretty directly.

This sounds like the last speech he could give, before giving one that lays out the consequences.

Let's hope Russia gets it. And let's hope they care.

Sending Rice to Tblisi. Aid will consist of 17 aircraft and supporting naval vessels.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

thank goodness we are starting to do something other then talk, sure would like to see some euro people start helping in their neighbors plight...

These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world.

You know it and we know it, George. I'm just not sure the world knows it.

re: #2 Cognito

Sounds like he's speaking to the UN, pretty directly.

This sounds like the last speech he could give, before giving one that lays out the consequences.

Let's hope Russia gets it. And let's hope they care.

This.

It may look weak on the face of it, but in diplomatic-speak, Bush just laid the gauntlet on the table. The next step is to slap Putin in the face with it. And we all know what comes after that.

And how long before a Kossack starts claiming this is all so Bush can try and stay in the White House longer?

From where I sit it doesn't sound like the POTUS is in much mood for "discussion" on the matter.

In a sense, Putin figures that he has crossed the Rubicon.
Like Ceasar's experience the sitting governmant is standing down & no allies look to be making a move to send military aide.
Putin will press his advantage, unless he has reason to believe that he is overplaying his hand

Everyone knows the Russians want peace.
A piece of Georgia, a piece of the Ukraine, a piece of Poland....

Pax Moskva

"negotiations" or "cease-fires" with an untrustworthy government is worse than foolhardy...it is willfull blindness.

Our state dept with their head up their ass agains? :

Saakashvili said the U.S. and the west have underestimated Russia's regional ambitions, saying Georgia warned the west that a large-scale Russian invasion was coming but were told by the U.S. State Department that the Russians "are not going to do that."

Could be the opening statement for a more forceful commitment.

re: #3 Sol Roth

Sending Rice to Tblisi. Aid will consist of 17 aircraft and supporting naval vessels.

[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Not 17 aircraft, C17 aircraft. A C17 is a transport plane that is huge. See here -
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

re: #6 thedopefishlives

This.

It may look weak on the face of it, but in diplomatic-speak, Bush just laid the gauntlet on the table. The next step is to slap Putin in the face with it. And we all know what comes after that.

Yes.

If you pray, pray for the C-17 crew going into harm's way.

I suspect this will not stop the Russians. They pretty much know we won't do anything directly.

re: #12 Thanos

Our state dept with their head up their ass agains? :

Well, Condi is a "Russian expert" you know :)

Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.

Why?

re: #8 CIA Reject

From where I sit it doesn't sound like the POTUS is in much mood for "discussion" on the matter.

We/Israel waited too long to attack Iran.

the chessboard pieces are moving.

re: #19 Peacekeeper

Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.

Why?

lol

OT

Attack on Lebanese army kills 14

TRIPOLI, Lebanon (AFP) — A bomb blast targeting the Lebanese army killed nine soldiers and five civilians in the northern city of Tripoli on Wednesday in the deadliest attack in the troubled country in three years.

The bombing, which left at least one child among the dead, came just hours before President Michel Sleiman began a landmark visit to Syria and the day after Lebanon's new national unity cabinet won parliamentary approval.

re: #21 ibmkeyboard

lol

BECAUSE! That's why!

re: #14 galloping granny

Not 17 aircraft, C17 aircraft. A C17 is a transport plane that is huge. See here -
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

Is that the one launchable from carriers? The article didn't identify the type of aircraft. Land-based could include the C5 Galaxy; a monster with room for shooty things.

re: #18 galloping granny

Well, Condi is a "Russian expert" you know :)

I thought she was an Israeli expert

re: #20 ibmkeyboard

I don't know if the chess pieces are moving, but when the united states gets involved with this expect Israel to attack Iran.

expect to see Damascus as a huge fire ball here soon too.

re: #17 johnnyreb

I suspect this will not stop the Russians. They pretty much know we won't do anything directly.

No, this is just exactly the right thing. As someone else said - Bush laid the gauntlet right on the table. If they take a shot at us, then on their heads be the blame. Otherwise, they have the chance to reconsider things and quietly do as Bush demanded (if you heard the speech, this was definitely not a request) and get every last Russian soldier out of Georgia.

Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.

...an immediate cease-fire, the withdrawal of forces from the zone of conflict, a return to the military status quo as of August 6th,

Russia’s government must respect Georgia’s territorial integrity

The Russian government must reverse the course

The line is drawn.
Now lets back it up.

re: #23 Peacekeeper

BECAUSE! That's why!

BUT WHY?

heh

re: #19 Peacekeeper

Such an action is unacceptable in the 21st century.

Why?

It just doesn't square with the flying cars and robot housekeepers.

re: #24 Sol Roth

Is that the one launchable from carriers? The article didn't identify the type of aircraft. Land-based could include the C5 Galaxy; a monster with room for shooty things.

This isn't the raid on Tokyo again in 1942. We don't have to sneak around and launch these cargo planes from carriers.

The cavalry is coming. Bush sets a new doctrine here to stop Russian aggression.

Sources: Bush to put Putin in Timeout for Georgia invasion.

I know we're a long way from a long way from a long way off; but something tells me the fighter pilots are dusting off some long-unused skills right now.

A long way off, as I said. But much closer than a month ago.

When is Barry going to respond to all of this? Oh Barry...where are you today?

This will be the ultimate test for Russia. If so much as a tire goes flat or a hair on one of our 'humanitarian aide' members falls off, we should bring the rain.

Putin, what you going to do, chump?

re: #27 galloping granny

No, this is just exactly the right thing. As someone else said - Bush laid the gauntlet right on the table. If they take a shot at us, then on their heads be the blame. Otherwise, they have the chance to reconsider things and quietly do as Bush demanded (if you heard the speech, this was definitely not a request) and get every last Russian soldier out of Georgia.

There are reports that the G-7 will no longer have Soviet Russia as an informal member, so that is, kiss the G-8 goodbye!

Statement could have been read by any news analyst.

One who doesn't get taxpayer luxury housing and the use of a really nice plane.

Glad I didn't see Bush reference Greg Allman in regards to the situation in Georgia.

re: #14 galloping granny

Not 17 aircraft, C17 aircraft. A C17 is a transport plane that is huge. See here -
[Link: en.wikipedia.org...]

And I doubt we're sending the C-17 in without any support.
However, the Russians aren't stupid enough to shoot it down. I hope.

Where's General Jack D. Ripper when you need him?
Wing attack, plan R.
Set your QRM 115 discriminator to L G F

re: #34 Cognito

I know we're a long way from a long way from a long way off; but something tells me the fighter pilots are dusting off some long-unused skills right now.

A long way off, as I said. But much closer than a month ago.

Our fighter pilots don't have to dust anything off.

re: #35 lori lane

When is Barry going to respond to all of this? Oh Barry...where are you today?

Can I just finish my waffle in peace?

re: #24 Sol Roth

Is that the one launchable from carriers? The article didn't identify the type of aircraft. Land-based could include the C5 Galaxy; a monster with room for shooty things.

C-17 is land based, unimproved runway capable. It can haul an MIA1, biggest heaviest thing in the inventory. C-5 is considered a Strategic asset because they can haul so much, unlikely to put a C-5 in harms way, use of a C-5 demands air superiority, and control of the ground.

re: #36 Oh no...Sand People!

If so much as a tire goes flat

Then Obama's message will have been in vain.

re: #35 lori lane
oh he's waiting for mccain to speak now, so he can steal a little of this and that from their speeches,

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And how long before a Kossack starts claiming this is all so Bush can try and stay in the White House longer?

As I posted in an earlier thread, the Left already has its stock responses ready. And as usual, VDH nails it:

In almost every liberal analysis of the Georgian fiasco, there appears that qualifier BUT, usually in the context of something like "of course, what Russia did was inexcusable, BUT..."

Then follows the expected (fill in the blanks):

a) Moral equivalence: BUT we invaded Iraq [attacking a dictatorship and fostering democracy is the same as attacking democracy to foster dictatorship];
b) Those Neocons: BUT once again those neocons are looking for new dragons to slay in their quest for perennial war [encouraging Georgian democracy is of course bad];
c) Bush Derangement Syndrome: BUT once again Bush's strutting got us into another jam abroad [Bush is both responsible for courting Putin and unnecessarily offending him].

I'm already hearing variations on all those sentiments from my lib acquaintances.

re: #42 Nevergiveup

Our fighter pilots don't have to dust anything off.

I'm not saying they've forgotten anything -- I'm saying they've not needed it for a long, long time.

re: #24 Sol Roth

Is that the one launchable from carriers? The article didn't identify the type of aircraft. Land-based could include the C5 Galaxy; a monster with room for shooty things.

No, not launchable from carriers - and that wouldn't do much good under the circumstances because our carriers do not normally run around with large amounts of spare humanitarian aid. Close though -

The C-17 is designed to operate from runways as short as 3,500 ft (1,064 m) and as narrow as 90 ft (27 m). In addition, the C-17 can operate out of unpaved, unimproved runways (although there is the increased possibility of damage to the aircraft).[19] The thrust reversers can be used to back the aircraft and reverse direction on narrow taxiways using a three-point (or in some cases, multi-point) turn maneuver.[19]

re: #35 lori lane

When is Barry going to respond to all of this? Oh Barry...where are you today?

Cant a man eat arugula waffles on his vacation in peace?

re: #35 lori lane

When is Barry going to respond to all of this? Oh Barry...where are you today?

Barry will save us.

He will Come.

Charles, those are Bush's remarks from Monday (I remember some of the specific statements). The date on the press release is August 11th, 2008, at 5:21pm.

re: #43 Peacekeeper

Can I just finish my waffle in peace?

LOL

re: #1 pegcity

Bush put's the lame in lame duck

Shoot. Meant to downding. He doesn't sound lame to me. He sounds worried and angry.

re: #40 Kosh's Shadow

And I doubt we're sending the C-17 in without any support.
However, the Russians aren't stupid enough to shoot it down. I hope.

Where's General Jack D. Ripper when you need him?
Wing attack, plan R.
Set your QRM 115 discriminator to L G F

They will be an AWACS most likely over the Black Sea, and a bunch of fast movers orbiting. Anything gets vectored at the -17 will get a fighter it's face.

re: #26 lefty201

I don't know if the chess pieces are moving, but when the united states gets involved with this expect Israel to attack Iran.

expect to see Damascus as a huge fire ball here soon too.

Except the US is REFUSING to supply Israel with arms that could be used to attack Iran.

re: #45 Occasional Reader

And oil goes up .000000001 cents.

re: #7 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

And how long before a Kossack starts claiming this is all so Bush can try and stay in the White House longer?

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

No shit.

re: #34 Cognito

I know we're a long way from a long way from a long way off; but something tells me the fighter pilots are dusting off some long-unused skills right now.

A long way off, as I said. But much closer than a month ago.

Cog, our fighter pilots don't have any "long unused" skills. For one thing, they'be been practicing against the Russian visitation. And for another, they war game constantly.

re: #56 Kosh's Shadow

Except the US is REFUSING to supply Israel with arms that could be used to attack Iran.

doesn't Israel have thier own stuff?

re: #58 christheprofessor

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

No shit.

So Putin is Bush's puppet? Who knew?

/

It is time for Russia to be true to its word

They lie.

They have learned, Mr President, that just as you buy Abbas and his lies, you will buy any BS.

re: #56 Kosh's Shadow

Except the US is REFUSING to supply Israel with arms that could be used to attack Iran.

I have my fingers crossed that is just what they had to say publicly. Behind the scenes however...

re: #48 Cognito

I'm not saying they've forgotten anything -- I'm saying they've not needed it for a long, long time.

We and the Israeli's have been shooting down Soviet made fighter planes in the Middle East for the last 20 years. I think the ratio is something like 3 or 400 to none. What are you talking about?

re: #24 Sol Roth

C-17 are transport aircraft. Capable of carrying a two M1A2 tanks, a 100+ troops, and a boatload of supplies. They're the successors to the C-131 Hercules aircraft with longer range and capacity.

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVESKI IN!

re: #58 christheprofessor

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

No shit.

Which only proves the point that during times of war of anything the left is a bunch of pussies.

re: #52 Ward Cleaver

Charles, those are Bush's remarks from Monday (I remember some of the specific statements). The date on the press release is August 11th, 2008, at 5:21pm.

Yes, they are. Today's statement is here -
[Link: www.foxnews.com...]

re: #66 Peacekeeper

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVESKI IN!

CHANGESKI?

re: #56 Kosh's Shadow

Except the US is REFUSING to supply Israel with arms that could be used to attack Iran.

I read that. Not sure if you should believe everything that is printed for public consumption out there. On the other hand, I don't really trust Sec. of Defence Gates.

re: #49 galloping granny

Yesterday, on the Hewitt show, VDH nailed it yet again:

"They’re timing was brilliant, that the world was distracted at the Olympics, we’re in an election campaign. You’ve got three different reactions from Obama, Bush and McCain, and no sense of direction. He’s (Putin) telling Europe you can give us all the sanctimonious lectures that you want, but in the end, there’s not much to soft power. We don’t really care about the E.U. There’s a lot of people who say you know, if they had been in NATO, they would have been protected. I have exactly the opposite feeling. Had they been in NATO, NATO would have been humiliated and dissolved, because nobody would have done anything to protect Georgia, from what we’ve seen in Afghanistan. So it was basically saying these are the periphery states of the old Soviet empire, and they’re really Russia, and they have been historically, and we’re going to keep them. They’re going to be autocratic, they’re going to serve our needs, and we don’t think much of the World Court of the Hague, or the E.U. or the U.N., and we have no respect for NATO, and this is the way it’s going to be from now on. And if you don’t like it, do something about it. That’s pretty much what they’ve said. "

[Link: hughhewitt.townhall.com...]

re: #68 Oh no...Sand People! uhm, yes bush and putin were bored with the olympics and decided hey let's have some fun! < don't think i needed that

re: #70 StinkHammer

CHANGESKI?

HOPESKI!

re: #58 christheprofessor

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

No shit.

Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. One the one hand they consider Bush to be stupider than a monkey. On the other hand, they think he is an evil genius, capable of staging a war between two foreign countries in order to elect another Republican?
Which way is it, either he's a moron or a genius, but he cant be both at the same time.

re: #24 Sol Roth

C-17 cannot operate off carriers.

re: #17 johnnyreb

No, the Russians do not know that. We went into Afganistan and Iraq.

re: #19 Peacekeeper

Well, because we are trying to make some progress in history. At least the USA is.

re: #67 cutestguy

The C17 is very capable of defending herself...

ahhhhhhhh!

That's not a C-17, it's an AC-130.

re: #61 Ward Cleaver

So Putin is Bush's puppet? Who knew?

/

Heh. I could tell he was old. Probably senile.

re: #59 galloping granny

They've been honing their skills in the sandboxes in Iraq and Afghanistan. They've been watching and learning constantly under fire since 2003 in Iraq and 2001 in Afghanistan.

That's on top of the rigorous training conducted to keep them sharp for all manner of eventuality. Besides, their primary mission the past few years has been close air support, and we're really good at that.

One hopes that via back channels we are using more direct and threatening language with Russia.

Russia claims to have a mirv capability on its ICBMs that can dodge our ABM capability. It made that claim a few years ago as it started down the path that we are now seeing result in re-conquest of their old empire.

We need to look pooty poo straight in his dead eyes and inform him that he may just get the chance to field test all his new weapons innovations.

We've tested ours.

re: #71 Nevergiveup

I read that. Not sure if you should believe everything that is printed for public consumption out there. On the other hand, I don't really trust Sec. of Defence Gates.

Barak pretty much confirmed it today.

re: #66 Peacekeeper

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVESKI IN!

In Obama America, Change believes in you!

re: #59 galloping granny

No, no -- I'm talking about real life application.

Of course they haven't lost their playbook and gotten fat on Twinkies.

(Mmmm... Twinkies...)

re: #68 Oh no...Sand People!
ouch i was supposed to have a sark tag, just in case.

OT: Just heard a top-of-the-hour radio news report on the "Republicans for Obama" flapdoodle. Man, they're really pushing that trifling tidbit into Major News status...

re: #67 cutestguy

The C17 is very capable of defending herself...

ahhhhhhhh!

C-130 but -17 is similar equiped. Flares as in video, chaff for radar, and active IR counter measures.

re: #78 christheprofessor

So Putin is Bush's puppet? Who knew?

Heh. I could tell he was old. Probably senile.

This is just a conspiracy to get McCain elected.

re: #65 lawhawk

C-141 Starlifter not the Hurc

re: #68 Oh no...Sand People!

Which only proves the point that during times of war of anything the left is a bunch of pussies.

Yup. The blame-Amerikkka-first crowd won't be happy until the US doesn't exist any more.

Then, their utopia will be their hell.

re: #82 cutestguy

aw crap!

/still looks fearsome...

Those are flares, no offensive value. Would do nothing if a fighter got into cannon range.

C-17 loads a tank

re: #81 opinionated

Barak pretty much confirmed it today.

Loose lips sinks ships. People really talk to much. But then disinformation has worked before?

re: #66 Peacekeeper

CHANGE YOU CAN BELIEVESKI IN!

Peace is on a roll.

lol

re: #64 Nevergiveup

We and the Israeli's have been shooting down Soviet made fighter planes in the Middle East for the last 20 years. I think the ratio is something like 3 or 400 to none. What are you talking about?

We haven't -- to my knowledge -- fought a highly-skilled opposing air force in ages.

Feel free to correct me, though. I'm no expert.

re: #77 Occasional Reader

That's not a C-17, it's an AC-130.

No gun barrels protruding on starboard?

Humm. Maybe the next move is to declare a no-fly zone over Tbilisi to facilitate the movement of humanitarian supplies? That would make it easier to bring up ships and land Marines, who could provide a tripwire in front of the city. Just thinking out loud, but it's an alternative they might be exploring.

re: #75 Sizzlack

Their hypocrisy never ceases to amaze me. One the one hand they consider Bush to be stupider than a monkey. On the other hand, they think he is an evil genius, capable of staging a war between two foreign countries in order to elect another Republican?
Which way is it, either he's a moron or a genius, but he cant be both at the same time.

Consistency has never been a moonbat strong point...

/their cognitive dissonance must be truly head-splitting...

Let's just say ALOHA to changeski, hopeski and its Russky pals.

re: #80 karmic_inquisitor

One hopes that via back channels we are using more direct and threatening language with Russia.

I'm almost sure this is true. The world of diplomacy is a strange one; words mean things. If you were a Russian ambassador and you heard the President's words, you'd be on the phone to the Kremlin as fast as your little Commie shoes could take you.

President Bush means serious business here. The only thing that worries me is that he's still playing with the State Department, which is the most incompetent bunch of do-nothing boobs in the U.S. Government right now.

re: #80 karmic_inquisitor

One hopes that via back channels we are using more direct and threatening language with Russia.

Russia claims to have a mirv capability on its ICBMs that can dodge our ABM capability. It made that claim a few years ago as it started down the path that we are now seeing result in re-conquest of their old empire.

We need to look pooty poo straight in his dead eyes and inform him that he may just get the chance to field test all his new weapons innovations.

We've tested ours.

He might get a chance to field test them, but he has to get them first. According to something I read the other day, a full 45% of the Russian military equipment is so old and outdated it has to be completely replaced. Replacement was scheduled starting in 2007 and continues through 2015.

re: #82 cutestguy

aw crap!

/still looks fearsome...

I think any cargo aircraft would be pretty much helpless against a reasonably modern fighter. Hopefully there are F-22s waiting to pounce should anything threaten the relief flights.

re: #88 ibmkeyboard

This is just a conspiracy to get McCain elected.

That's exactly what the caller said...

Lord Obama: Can't my comrades the Russians just hold off until I get back from Hawaii?

re: #85 willowone

I read you right.
:)

re: #13 Peacekeeper

Could be the opening statement for a more forceful commitment.

I double-dog dare ya?

Followed by the dreaded Triple-dog-dare?

Pop Quiz: NASA is retiring the shuttle fleet in 2010. The replacement will not be ready for use until at least 2015. The U.S. will not have access to our assets in orbit for 5 years without using which county's space program?

(A bit OT but important nevertheless)

re: #103 christheprofessor

That's exactly what the caller said...

ha.

Obama will come

re: #98 christheprofessor

similar to their shrieking no blood for oil . yet they wont let us drill our own. (if they really believed it)

re: #89 bulwrk

C-141 Starlifter not the Hurc

C-130J is the current production model. YC-130 flew in '54. 54 years not bad for a design. Skunk works' Kelly Johnson didn't like the -130 design.

re: #92 Ojoe

C-17 loads a tank

An M-1 Abrams. 70 tons. Not just any old little tank. Or 120 paratroopers plus gear.

re: #67 cutestguy

The C17 is very capable of defending herself...

ahhhhhhhh!

Isn't that a C-130?

"This is not...uh...the Putin I once knew." - Barack Obama

re: #93 Nevergiveup

Loose lips sinks ships. People really talk to much. But then disinformation has worked before?

Disinformation makes no sense here. You would want Iran to be afraid so maybe they will concede prior to any attack.

The US, Mullen, Gates, have telegraphed in every which way that the US has vetoed an Israeli attack on Iran.

Bush will allow what he once said would lead to WWIII. Iran will go nuclear.

re: #52 Ward Cleaver

Charles, those are Bush's remarks from Monday (I remember some of the specific statements). The date on the press release is August 11th, 2008, at 5:21pm.

Didn't today's speech speak of delivering humanitarian aid?

re: #110 willowone

Bingo.

re: #95 Cognito

We haven't -- to my knowledge -- fought a highly-skilled opposing air force in ages.

Feel free to correct me, though. I'm no expert.

Unless we are going to go up against the Israeli air force, there is no highly-skilled opposing air force out there. Every time American hardware has gone up against Soviet hardware, it has been no contest. Neither us nor the Israeli's has lost a plane in a air to air confrontation in over 30 years.

Cognito -

As an FYI, the US has a land force capability that is well tuned to fighting Russian forces. And our ability to achieve air supremacy against the Russian air force is unquestioned.

If Russia is stupid enough to invite a war with the US it will find itself wanting to go to nukes quickly, because they will be over run on the ground as quickly as Iraqi forces were, without aid of sandstorms to slow us down.

There is no need to dust off any skills - they are there and they are sharp and battle hardened.

re: #111 jcm

C-130J is the current production model. YC-130 flew in '54. 54 years not bad for a design. Skunk works' Kelly Johnson didn't like the -130 design.

But Newt Gingrich liked producing them in Georgia. They have their uses.

RED ALERT TIME:

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.
FCC Commissioner Robert McDowell raised that as a possibility after talking with bloggers at the Heritage Foundation in Washington, D.C. McDowell spoke about a recent FCC vote to bar Comcast from engaging in certain Internet practices – expanding the federal agency’s oversight of Internet networks.

The commissioner, a 2006 President Bush appointee, told the Business & Media Institute the Fairness Doctrine could be intertwined with the net neutrality battle. The result might end with the government regulating content on the Web, he warned. McDowell, who was against reprimanding Comcast, said the net neutrality effort could win the support of “a few isolated conservatives” who may not fully realize the long-term effects of government regulation.

“I think the fear is that somehow large corporations will censor their content, their points of view, right,” McDowell said. “I think the bigger concern for them should be if you have government dictating content policy, which by the way would have a big First Amendment problem.”

“Then, whoever is in charge of government is going to determine what is fair, under a so-called ‘Fairness Doctrine,’ which won’t be called that – it’ll be called something else,” McDowell said. “So, will Web sites, will bloggers have to give equal time or equal space on their Web site to opposing views rather than letting the marketplace of ideas determine that?”

re: #88 ibmkeyboard

This is just a conspiracy to get McCain elected.

Wait -- is Karl Rove now working for McCain? Sweeeeet.

In all seriousness, this will likely serve to remind people that while the Communist party may not be (totally) in charge in Russia, the empire mindset could still rear its head.

Makes some of Obama's associations a little... awkward.

It now appears that an effort may be underway to depose Russia’s* duly elected government.

Shouldn't that be, Georgia's duly elected government? Is that why the asterisk?

re: #116 MandyManners

Didn't today's speech speak of delivering humanitarian aid?

Yes it did. You can read about the speech here - [Link: www.foxnews.com...]

Fox also has the video

Does Tim Kaine know about this?

re: #115 opinionated

Disinformation makes no sense here. You would want Iran to be afraid so maybe they will concede prior to any attack.

The US, Mullen, Gates, have telegraphed in every which way that the US has vetoed an Israeli attack on Iran.

Bush will allow what he once said would lead to WWIII. Iran will go nuclear.

All your saying may be true. But it is also true Israel may still go it alone.

re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Great...does that mean LGF would have to split my screen with Huffpo or Kos?

Not a chance.

re: #20 ibmkeyboard

We/Israel waited too long to attack Iran.

the chessboard pieces are moving.

The Iran fight may have to be fought in a non-conventional manner. I'm no military strategist, but it seems like our military is stretched a bit thin at the moment.

Condi Clueless Rice to the rescue!

1000 aircraft photos dot com

You may inform yourselves on this excellent website.

Koskidz cheer on Comrade Putin.....
Maybe, Vlad Putin is about to do the planet a big favor

.....the increased instability of Europe's oil supply will only help spur the EU into developing alternative methods of generating energy, and using renewables as fuels. It will help Europe to lead where America simply has refused to do so - in a more rapid development of alternative energy sources.
...
The uncertainty of oil and gas supplies and the attendant rise prices is exactly what is needed to spur a more rapid shift towards renewables. The attack on Georgia will have little impact here, but with the Russians already showing that they are more than willing to shut off the pipeline to accomplish political goals, the EU will be provided with a more clear view of how important it is to break away from oil and gas.

It's too bad that the US is being badly left behind in the process.

Progressive!

re: #92 Ojoe

C-17 loads a tank

That's a Bradley. But C-17 can take an M1A1

re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Wow. The Republicans should use the phrase "a vote for a Democrat is a vote for a fascist" in this election cycle.

re: #125 itellu3times

Shouldn't that be, Georgia's duly elected government? Is that why the asterisk?

* * *
Freudian slip! By George, I'd LIKE to depose RUSSIA's rotten government too.

re: #108 FreeIowa

Pop Quiz: NASA is retiring the shuttle fleet in 2010. The replacement will not be ready for use until at least 2015. The U.S. will not have access to our assets in orbit for 5 years without using which county's space program?

(A bit OT but important nevertheless)

We could probably pay Rutan and Scaled Composites what we'd pay the Russians and have something by the time we have to retire the shuttles (can probably get another year or so)

re: #119 Nevergiveup

Unless we are going to go up against the Israeli air force, there is no highly-skilled opposing air force out there. Every time American hardware has gone up against Soviet hardware, it has been no contest. Neither us nor the Israeli's has lost a plane in a air to air confrontation in over 30 years.

Yes, that was my original point.

Against Russia we'd find a bit more than Soviet hardware flown by half-trained knuckleheads.

re: #128 Nevergiveup

Israel does not have the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear faciltiies by itself. This is a pipe dream (Israel going it alone).

re: #133 Killgore Trout

Koskidz cheer on Comrade Putin.....
Maybe, Vlad Putin is about to do the planet a big favor

Progressive!

We're all locked up in a gulag...but at least we have a windmill outside...that is broken from the carpet bombing...

/they are full on insane.

re: #121 itellu3times

But Newt Gingrich liked producing them in Georgia. They have their uses.

It's a solid useful plane, it can do some things the C-17 can't.

re: #58 christheprofessor

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

No shit.

That kind of crazy thinking (Bush is responsible for everything including whether or not my gerbil jogs in his wheel this morning) will definitely get

McCain elected

re: #95 Cognito

We haven't -- to my knowledge -- fought a highly-skilled opposing air force in ages.

Feel free to correct me, though. I'm no expert.

Broadly correct, I believe. Some limited air to air action in Desert Storm. Occasional fun and games with the Libyans. That's about it. That said, US pilots spend more time per pilot on in-air training than anyone except the Israelis. And I think that in air to air combat, you can train much more like you would fight, as compared to ground training.

re: #112 galloping granny

An M-1 Abrams. 70 tons. Not just any old little tank. Or 120 paratroopers plus gear.

That's not an Abrams in the picture, looks more like a Bradley, but I'm not sure.

re: #65 lawhawk

C-17 are transport aircraft. Capable of carrying a two M1A2 tanks, a 100+ troops, and a boatload of supplies. They're the successors to the C-131 Hercules aircraft with longer range and capacity.

They're actually the replacement for, and closer in size to, the recently-retired C-141 Starlifter (they're slightly larger than a C-141). They are quite a bit larger than the Herc, which is still in production (the C-130J), 55 years after its maiden flight at Burbank airport.

/long live the hercules!

re: #139 Joel

Israel does not have the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear faciltiies by itself. This is a pipe dream (Israel going it alone).

I don't disagree but they can put a dent in it. And at some point, they may have no choice.

re: #130 CIA Reject

The Iran fight may have to be fought in a non-conventional manner. I'm no military strategist, but it seems like our military is stretched a bit thin at the moment.

We've committed only a fraction of our available firepower and willpower to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention that if we did have to go toe-to-toe with Iran, that would most certainly draw the Russians in (since Russia has tacitly supported Iran for years), which would lead to a WWIII in the classic sense of the term.

re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

McDowell warns reinstated powers could play in net neutrality debate, lead to government requiring balance on Web sites.

No more hearts,
bump ups
or deleted comments.

will we still be able to quote?

frigging trolls will be given consideration.

My Russian vocabulary is greater than Condi Rice's, and all I've ever done is watch James Bond movies and read Vi@gr@!1 spam.

Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region. These actions have substantially damaged Russia’s standing in the world. And these actions jeopardize Russians’ relations — Russia’s relations with the United States and Europe. It is time for Russia to be true to its word and to act to end this crisis.

This is pure Condi, what she was saying to the cameras yesterday.

re: #144 Kosh's Shadow

That's not an Abrams in the picture, looks more like a Bradley, but I'm not sure.

Definately not a tank. Some sort of AFV.

re: #95 Cognito

It is about speed and agility. Not dogfighting.

We would establish air supremacy by taking out Russian air defenses quickly (which we and Israelis have done multiple times in the last 20 years - just about every air action taken was against Russian designed and implemented air defenses - they are rigid and easy to defeat).

Take out the air defenses and hit the air fields and communications capability. Look at Kosovo for that playbook.

The Russians would have a hard time fielding enough aircraft, and they have a notoriously disabled supply and maintenance capability.

They'd lose badly. Which is why they'd go to nukes quickly.

The nukes are the real threat, and Russian humanitarianism isn't beyond deploying area nuclear weapons.

re: #144 Kosh's Shadow

That's not an Abrams in the picture, looks more like a Bradley, but I'm not sure.

I didn't send a link for a picture. I quoted from the Wiki link I posted above.

re: #138 Cognito

Yes, that was my original point.

Against Russia we'd find a bit more than Soviet hardware flown by half-trained knuckleheads.

You really are wrong. It would be just another great big turkey shot. We know it, the Russsians know it, it's just you who don't get it!

re: #133 Killgore Trout

Koskidz cheer on Comrade Putin.....
Maybe, Vlad Putin is about to do the planet a big favor

Progressive!

What's a few thousand dead Georgians if it helps spur more people to use compact flourescent bulbs? Long live progressive values!

The US continues to adhere to the same military doctrine that enabled the world to avoid a nuclear conflagration - avoid direct military conflict between Russian (Soviet) and US forces at all costs. Proxy wars are okay, but keep them from getting into direct entanglements. That's why you're not going to see the US get into a direct war with the Russians. The stakes are simply astronomical should that come to pass.

re: #139 Joel

Israel does not have the ability to destroy Iran's nuclear faciltiies by itself. This is a pipe dream (Israel going it alone).

Only with nukes.

Without nukes I'm not sure even the US could do it, short of a month of heavy bombing.

re: #144 Kosh's Shadow

That's not an Abrams in the picture, looks more like a Bradley, but I'm not sure.

was that a Russian T-79 for target practice?

re: #153 karmic_inquisitor

They'd lose badly. Which is why they'd go to nukes quickly.

That, indeed, is the problem.

re: #110 willowone

similar to their shrieking no blood for oil . yet they wont let us drill our own. (if they really believed it)

Funny how since the price of gas has skyrocketed, I haven't heard the phrase "war for oil" much...

/another Boosh conspiracy, no doubt

re: #157 lawhawk

The US continues to adhere to the same military doctrine that enabled the world to avoid a nuclear conflagration - avoid direct military conflict between Russian (Soviet) and US forces at all costs. Proxy wars are okay, but keep them from getting into direct entanglements. That's why you're not going to see the US get into a direct war with the Russians. The stakes are simply astronomical should that come to pass.

Exactly. But we got to get back into the proxy business!

re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

RED ALERT TIME:

FCC Commissioner: Return of Fairness Doctrine Could Control Web Content

There's a big difference between net neutrality (preventing ISPs from blocking some sites or giving others preferred treatment), and the "fairness doctrine". The former is more like requiring a cable company to supply all on-air channels in the area, while the other is requiring stations (or sites) to cover all sides.

So net neutrality, what the FCC has stood up for, would prevent Comcast from blocking LGF, but wouldn't require LGF to give equal time to Kos. If a Comcast subscriber wanted to read Kos, he could easily go to their site, which Comcast would also have to carry.

re: #120 karmic_inquisitor

Furthermore, the US troops are well trained & highly motivated volunteers. The Russian troops are brutalized, drunk conscripts. That makes a big difference.

IMHO, Russians will bomb ( or put their troops in) ALL airfields. Remember August 1968? No airfields - no foreigners. Humanitarian aid? Diplomats? Who cares...

re: #125 itellu3times

Shouldn't that be, Georgia's duly elected government? Is that why the asterisk?

Yes, there's a correction in the WH transcript, but as a footnote.

re: #153 karmic_inquisitor

It is about speed and agility. Not dogfighting.

We would establish air supremacy by taking out Russian air defenses quickly (which we and Israelis have done multiple times in the last 20 years - just about every air action taken was against Russian designed and implemented air defenses - they are rigid and easy to defeat).

Take out the air defenses and hit the air fields and communications capability. Look at Kosovo for that playbook.

The Russians would have a hard time fielding enough aircraft, and they have a notoriously disabled supply and maintenance capability.

They'd lose badly. Which is why they'd go to nukes quickly.

The nukes are the real threat, and Russian humanitarianism isn't beyond deploying area nuclear weapons.

Remember the flap not so long ago when Israel destroyed the nuke in Syria - despite the top of the line, latest greatest Russian radar warning system. The Russians had fitskis trying to figure out how they circumvented it.

We were in the proxy business in Georgia. Russia just had too many guys. They outnumbered them.

That Roki Tunnel should've been blown.

re: #121 itellu3times

But Newt Gingrich liked producing them in Georgia. They have their uses.

I put the 130 right up there with the B-17 and the B-52, as some of the best planes ever designed. The Herc has been in continuous production for over 50 years for good reason.

re: #123 Kragar (Proud to be Kafir)

Indeed.

re: #147 Nevergiveup

I don't disagree but they can put a dent in it. And at some point, they may have no choice.

They will lose planes an pilots trying to do it and probably get a war on the Lebanese border. The US has to do it with its Tomahawk Cruise missiles and Stealth bombers.

There really is not a whole lot of coverage on this. I made a quip to my girlfriend about this the other night and she had not hear about it. She is not a news junky like me... but she really is much more in tune then the average person.

I guess doing this during the Olympics was brilliant on Putin's part.

re: #163 Kosh's Shadow

The question is linking the two issues together, and he seems to think that it is a higher probability with a Democrat in office than a GOPer.

re: #156 Occasional Reader

What's a few thousand dead Georgians if it helps spur more people to use compact flourescent bulbs? Long live progressive values!

Well, there is all that stuff about broken eggs and omelets and all kinda rationale like that there . . .

re: #171 Joel

They will lose planes an pilots trying to do it and probably get a war on the Lebanese border. The US has to do it with its Tomahawk Cruise missiles and Stealth bombers.

Well call George up and tell him!

re: #35 lori lane

When is Barry going to respond to all of this? Oh Barry...where are you today?

Let him eat his hula pie.

re: #128 Nevergiveup

All your saying may be true. But it is also true Israel may still go it alone.

I'm not just saying that the US is against an Israeli attack on Iran. I believe the US will make it impossible for Israel to even make an attempt- even if the current Israeli leadership was up to the challenge.

I may be completely wrong here (I have been before), but it appears that we don't have any kind of treaty with Georgia, just agreements. Without any kind of treaty, wouldn't President Bush would need Congressional approval for any US military move to that country. Or does the war powers act cover this kind of situation?

And I do not think for one minute that Congress will give him the green light to do anything military after the Iraq thingy.

re: #167 galloping granny

despite the top of the line, latest greatest Russian radar warning system.

Which suddenly "went dark"... I loved that.

re: #148 thedopefishlives

We've committed only a fraction of our available firepower and willpower to Iraq and Afghanistan. Not to mention that if we did have to go toe-to-toe with Iran, that would most certainly draw the Russians in (since Russia has tacitly supported Iran for years), which would lead to a WWIII in the classic sense of the term.

Which is a very good reason to deal with our Iranian friends in a "non-attributable" fashion.

re: #175 Nevergiveup

Well call George up and tell him!

Hey he does not listen to me when I write him to get rid of Condi Clueless Rice.

re: #157 lawhawk
this is what's bothering me, and i wouldn't have a clue, did they think we'd sit, or did they think we'd help georgians?

re: #163 Kosh's Shadow

What the Commisioner is talking about is basically bypassing net neutrality and having people in Congress try to work web sites into the Fairness Doctrine debate. It wouldn't be a question of what companies carry if Congress regulates the content of the sites.

All we need to do and check our tire pressure and all will be well.

re: #173 lawhawk

The question is linking the two issues together, and he seems to think that it is a higher probability with a Democrat in office than a GOPer.

Yes, the two issues of net neutrality and fairness need to be kept separate. With neutrality, the true version of fairness comes naturally - want to say something? Get a web site, they're cheap, unlike a TV station, which is expensive and requires a government license.

re: #115 opinionated

Disinformation makes no sense here. You would want Iran to be afraid so maybe they will concede prior to any attack.

The US, Mullen, Gates, have telegraphed in every which way that the US has vetoed an Israeli attack on Iran.

Bush will allow what he once said would lead to WWIII. Iran will go nuclear.

Depends on how you define "is".

In #56, Kosh's Shadow said that the US is refusing to sell the necessary weapons to Israel. Does that mean that the US has already supplied Israel with a gazillion tons of the necessary materiel, so we won't need to make any further shipments? Or maybe we're not selling it to Israel, we're loaning it ala Lend-lease. Or maybe the stuff is sitting in Iraq just waiting for the Israelis to arrive and launch from Iraq. As Bill Clinton proved, there's a lot of wiggle room in the word "is".

Asterix.

re: #112 galloping granny

An M-1 Abrams. 70 tons. Not just any old little tank. Or 120 paratroopers plus gear.

I think the vehicle in the photo is a Bradley Armord personnel carrier, not the rightly feared Abrams tank - gun barrel is too short and it's too high for an Abrams - though it CAN carry an Abrams, that's not one in the photo.

M1A1 loading onto C-17

Question for the panel:

Is this the first time US and Russian forces have squared off against each other openly since 1945?

re: #157 lawhawk

The US continues to adhere to the same military doctrine that enabled the world to avoid a nuclear conflagration - avoid direct military conflict between Russian (Soviet) and US forces at all costs. Proxy wars are okay, but keep them from getting into direct entanglements. That's why you're not going to see the US get into a direct war with the Russians. The stakes are simply astronomical should that come to pass.

We're going into a war zone with military assets that has Russia as the aggressor. All they have to do is "mistakenly" shoot down one plane or harm our Secretary of State while she's in Tblisi. That's pretty direct involvement and your astronomic stakes are right on target.

The next few hours and Russian moves will be critical to how this thing plays out.

re: #119 Nevergiveup

Unless we are going to go up against the Israeli air force, there is no highly-skilled opposing air force out there. Every time American hardware has gone up against Soviet hardware, it has been no contest. Neither us nor the Israeli's has lost a plane in a air to air confrontation in over 30 years.

It isn't a question of hardware, Russia has some very capable jet fighters. What Russia doesn't have is very many capable pilots.
And NOTHING piloted by anyone - including the IAF-can take an F-22 Raptor. Nothing.

re: #178 johnnyreb

Who the f'ck cares what Congress wants?

They know they will lose a War Powers confrontation, and even that gives the President 60days to do what he needs to do.

re: #193 realwest

It isn't a question of hardware, Russia has some very capable jet fighters. What Russia doesn't have is very many capable pilots.
And NOTHING piloted by anyone - including the IAF-can take an F-22 Raptor. Nothing.

Pilots going up against a Raptor are gonna' be hanging in their chute saying WTF just happened?

re: #191 faraway

Question for the panel:

Is this the first time US and Russian forces have squared off against each other openly since 1945?

No. So?

re: #191 faraway Nope - Korea, although the Nork Mig-15's were not officially flown by Soviet Pilots, they were. Saw an excellent (for a change) documentary on the History Channel about a year ago where they interviewed some of the Soviet pilots who conceeded that the US pilots - many of them aces from WWII - were just too good to beat.

re: #125 itellu3times

Shouldn't that be, Georgia's duly elected government? Is that why the asterisk?

Yes, the White House page provides a footnote.

(Although if you think of it, it's pretty much Putin running the show instead of Medvedev, so it's not entirely off the mark.)

re: #197 realwest
openly - not covertly

re: #58 christheprofessor

I heard a caller on a local talk radio show the other day say that Bush engineered this to get McCain elected.

It really, really sucks to be continuously outsmarted by a guy that is supposedly so "dumb".

re: #191 faraway

Question for the panel:

Is this the first time US and Russian forces have squared off against each other openly since 1945?

The cold war was hot in many locations and times. And tense many others.

Just the air war alone had a bunch of our planes shot down.

re: #191 faraway

US & Russian forces are not squaring off in Georgia. Russian & Georgian forces are.

re: #197 realwest

Nope - Korea, although the Nork Mig-15's were not officially flown by Soviet Pilots, they were. Saw an excellent (for a change) documentary on the History Channel about a year ago where they interviewed some of the Soviet pilots who conceeded that the US pilots - many of them aces from WWII - were just too good to beat.

Yeager took a capture Mig-17 and proved he could routinely beat an F-86 with it.

re: #194 de La Valette

Who the f'ck cares what Congress wants?

They know they will lose a War Powers confrontation, and even that gives the President 60days to do what he needs to do.

That was my point. Even with the war powers act, 60 days is not going to fix this mess and the Russians are banking on exactly that.

They know Congress does not have the nads to give President Bush anymore power to do anything. If they do, come November they will be no threat in any election in the country. Their base of nut roots will simply not vote for them because they gave President Bush the authority to start another illegal war for oil.

re: #190 jcm Ah, yep, that is indeed the Abrams being loaded.

re: #112 galloping granny

An M-1 Abrams. 70 tons. Not just any old little tank. Or 120 paratroopers plus gear.

C-17 has a 170,900lbs. load rating. That's one M1A1 plus some support gear. The C-5 can reportedly carry two, but is rated for 270,000lbs. which is a little short of 140tons. They might play some games with the fuel load and refuel after take-off to take off with two on board.

re: #203 jcm Well first of all Chuck was an exceptional pilot and secondly the Mig 17 was significantly better than the F-86. Not so the Mig-15.

re: #201 jcm

Slightly off topic: a recent book, Foxbats over Dimona claims the "Egyptian" planes that overflew Israel in the 6 Day War were piloted by Russians.

re: #201 jcm Yes, BUT.
Most of our losses were of unarmed reconnasence planes - much different than fighter to fighter "competition".

re: #202 Kenneth

US & Russian forces are not squaring off in Georgia. Russian & Georgian forces are.

Bush is sending land, sea and air forces.

re: #210 faraway

To deliver humanitarian aid. Not to fight. Now, if the Russians decide to engage... that changes things.

Apparently the Russians are not at all fearful of a confrontation with the US even through proxy. I am hopeful that this will create at backlash against the Dem's selection of the stupendously unqualified Obama as leader of the "free" world.

re: #25 ibmkeyboard

It will be interesting to watch Condi's rationalizations as she tries to sort Georgia's situation vs. Israel's situation. Because I doubt she'll ask that Georgia cave as she's pushed Israel to do.

re: #208 Kenneth

Slightly off topic: a recent book, Foxbats over Dimona claims the "Egyptian" planes that overflew Israel in the 6 Day War were piloted by Russians.

As I recall, that was what was reported at the time. Course I was a good Army wife back then, so it might have been what I heard from the guys rather than the news.

OK Putin...you're move now!

Looks like we might be going to war.

The Raptor is a great air-frame but is vulnerable in a dog-fight. Of course, dog-fights are going to be a rarity with the Raptor.

The Mig-15/17 had three problems.

Lack of air-conditioning/heating in the cockpit which would allow the cockpit glass to fog over routinely. Its flight controls weren't boosted. And the pilot didn't have as good a view as in the F-86.

re: #212 CLLRusso

Apparently the Russians are not at all fearful of a confrontation with the US even through proxy. I am hopeful that this will create at backlash against the Dem's selection of the stupendously unqualified Obama as leader of the "free" world.

The Russians can lost thousands of men and hundreds of planes without much concern internal political backlash.
If the US loses a hubcap on a hummvee it will be proof that we have lost.

re: #201 jcm

The cold war was hot in many locations and times. And tense many others.

Just the air war alone had a bunch of our planes shot down.

Thanks for pointing that out.
That was my branch.
Always irks me when it's called The 'Cold' War.

re: #217 cambronne

The Russians can lost thousands of men and hundreds of planes without much concern internal political backlash.
If the US loses a hubcap on a hummvee it will be proof that we have lost.

True. WWII Russian casualties were staggering.

re: #34 Cognito

I know we're a long way from a long way from a long way off; but something tells me the fighter pilots are dusting off some long-unused skills right now.

A long way off, as I said. But much closer than a month ago.

THE BEAR'S MILITARY MESS

RUSSIA's military is succeeding in its invasion of Georgia, but only because Moscow has applied overwhelming force.

This campaign was supposed to be the big debut for the Kremlin's revitalized armed forces (funded by the country's new petro-wealth). Well, the new Russian military looks a lot like the old Russian military: slovenly and not ready for prime time.

It can hammer tiny Georgia into submission - but this campaign unintentionally reveals plenty of enduring Russian weaknesses.

The most visible failings are those of the air force. Flying Moscow's latest ground-attack jets armed with the country's newest precision weapons, pilots are missing far more targets than they're hitting.

All those strikes on civilian apartment buildings and other non-military targets? Some may be intentional (the Russians aren't above terror-bombing), but most are just the result of ill-trained pilots flying scared.

They're missing pipelines, rail lines and oil-storage facilities - just dumping their bombs as quickly as they can and heading home.

Russia's also losing aircraft. The Kremlin admits two were shot down; the Georgians claimed they'd downed a dozen by Sunday. Split the difference, and you have seven or more Russian aircraft knocked out of the sky by a tiny enemy. Compare that to US Air Force losses - statistically zero - in combat in all of our wars since Desert Storm.

As one US officer observed to me, the Russian pilots are neither professionally nor emotionally toughened for their missions. Their equipment's pretty good (not as good as ours), but their training lags - and their pilots log far fewer flight hours than ours do.

Russia has been planning and organizing this invasion for months. And they're pulling it off - but the military's embarrassing blunders must be infuriating Prime Minister Putin.

Hey cog, bashing the US again. Stuck on stupid, eh?

re: #220 Irene NYC

Hey cog, bashing the US again. Stuck on stupid, eh?

Utter crap. Where did I bash the US?

I suggest you check what you're stuck on, before pointing any fingers.

"Russia’s actions this week have raised serious questions about its intentions in Georgia and the region our willingness to do anything about them."

Fixed it for you, GW.