foeofthelance

This is truth.

Mostly because of the scope he was talking about. None of those organizations have even a fraction of the power or funding of the military, and even taken together they would represent a minor blip in comparison. He compared this new force to the military. The military is based on the idea that it can break a lot of things and kill/incapacitate a large number of people very quickly. It spends several trillion dollars a year making sure it is capable of doing this. It spends this money on tanks, planes, ships, bullets, and people to use them. Obama wants his new force to be just as well funded and just as powerful. His own words, no messing around. What kind of civilian police force needs several trillion dollars in funding? Where is he planning on getting the money for it? Why would they need the kind of combat/staying power of the military? What would they be using it on?

Because we already have federal police forces. Their known as the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Parks Service, the Bureau of Alchohol, Tobaaco, and Firearms, the Secret Service, the Drug Enforcement Agency and to a certain point the Department of Homeland Security in its role as border guard. Above that we have the National Guard units, which are each responsible for the defense of their own state, responding to local emergancies, and serving as a reserve for the military. Out of all of them, the only one with anything close to the funding and power of the military is the National Guard units. They exist as a way around the limits of Posse Comitatus, which prevents the military forces from actively deploying in the U.S. They get around this rule by deploying under the independent authority of the state governors rather than under any federal orders. So, in ascending rank of jurisdiction, you have: Local police, who deal with everything inside their city county State Police, who deal with everything on the highways/cross county lines FBI, which handles all crimes that cross state lines, or may have Parks Service, which is responsible for all Federal parks and land Secret Service, which handles counterfeiting and other Treasury crimes Drug Enforcement Agency, which is responsible for counter drug ops BATF, which does the same thing for guns and such DHS, which handles the borders, generic smuggling, and the airports Then there is the military, which can't deploy inside the United States for combat operations against Americans, and can only be deployed for so long at the President's will before he has to either get permission from congress to leave them there, or bring them home. They're also the most expensive of the lot, because maintence and purchases of their equipment, not to mention personnel, puts them heads above the rest. So again I ask: for what do we need a Federally controlled, country wide police force, and why should they have as much power as the military?

That sucks, PS, it really does. Words fail at a time like this. Just know you have my sympathy, as one cat owner to another.

And I find that disconcerting, because its been fairly evident to me that both sides have been slinging as much mud as fast as it takes to get the dirt wet. McCain is too old: Agism. Palin shouldn't take the post because she's a mother: Sexism "Abort Palin": I'd say sexism again, but considering what we mean when we generally talk about aborting someone that strikes me more as a wish the person was dead. Are we then supposed to then bind everyone up in one group and paint them all with the same brush? Because I'm more than willing to bet that I'm as much a racist homophobe as you are a sexist/agist bigot. I'm not denying that there are idiot fanatics on both sides; we've already seen plenty of evidence of that on this forum, and I've seen much worse on others. I'm more than willing to claim our side's exists; why not acknowledge yours? Becuase what's good for the goose is good for the gander, but all I've heard so far is deny, deny, deny. Obama's associations shouldn't be counted, because they've either reformed, or I wasn't there to validate the claims. His past actions shouldn't be judged, because they were in the past. Obama's campaign isn't playing dirty because there are racist Republicans. These are the arguements I'm hearing. What? All the quotes I posted were in the first person. I pointed out that the book they were from was written by him... And if we're covering dumb, stupid mistakes... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-WZut0iYM...id=event_975451 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEIzEfm6N6Q...feature=related And you know what's really scary? That got raised on another forum I frequent. It was passed off that he was referring to the Peace Corps and Americorps. in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." I've added my own emphasis to a few key phrases. We'll start with the first one, national security. Generally we use this when we talk about preventing an actual attack, or responding to such. In this case I'll assume Obama meant that he was going to try and prevent attacks on U.S. holdings. Ok, I can see how expanding the Peace Corps might help in that case. Buying goodwill from other nations has always been a good way to keep them from getting ticked off at you for other things. I don't see how expaning Americorps would help all that much though... But then we get to the second half of the statement. He says the force needs to be "just as powerful, just as strong, just as well funded." As what? The lead in mentions the military, so based on the way the English language works we'd have to assume that's the organization he's comparing this hypothetical civilian national security force to. Well, what makes the military strong and powerful? It's ability to deploy and use force of arms to break, take, and hold objectives. Sure the modern infrastructure has the ability to deployed in a variety of support roles, but let's be honest. The military was established to break dams, not build them. So if you want to make a force "just as powerful, just as strong" you're effectively telling me that you want a force that could stand toe to toe with the military, because that's what you're basing strength and power on. We already have plenty of different groups assigned to protecting the nation in one degree or another, but none of them have the "power" to take on the military in a stand up fight. Instead they are limited to what would be expected of trying to deal with armed civilians. (Actually, figuring the black market and congressional panic attacks, the civilians are probably better armed.) Just as well funded... Well, the average battle vehicle, whether tank, plane, or battleship, can run anywhere from a few hundred million to a small billion or so. What kind of civilian force, in any capacity, would need to spend that kind of money? On what? We (sort of) know what the military spends its money on. New equipment, maintence of old equipment, paying the soldiers and buying ammo, up to date communications technology and satellites, experimental tech, even the maintence of all those nukes we keep in the closet. What would this "civilian" force be playing with that could cost that kind of money? If Obama really meant a more public works oriented group, why not refer to the Roosevelt programs of the New Deal? Why not refer to the Peace Corps and Americorps? These are all much better references for a new public works program he might be envisioning. So either he meant what he said, or he made a very stupid (in my opinion) public gaffe. Because otherwise what he's talking about is essentially a domestic military under the control of the President. Not something akin to the national guard that is beholden to the states; not an investigative branch like the FBI; not an intelligence agency like the CIA or NSA. But essentially a force that gets around the Posse Comitatus rule that keeps the military from acting inside the U.S. That scares me.

Actually, you're remark was that all you were hearing was bad stuff about Obama, and that there wasn't anything coming out of his camp. My point was that both sides were being just as bad. Both sides have been more than willing to let their proxies make the attacks for them. Obama is trying to make sure he has the ability to deny everything, and McCain is doing everything he can to avoid the cries of racism that have been dogging Republicans since Obama won the nominiation. But trying to villify the McCain campaign for playing the politics game when the Obama campaign has been doing the same is somewhat hypocritical to me. And no, I'm not really surprised that there's an emphasis on the smears from the Right while the ones from the Left get played down, not when Obama's managed to raise, and spend, about twice as much as McCain... Then there's this little gem: http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/10/25/ob...ida-tv-station/ Actually, the kid who did it got caught and confessed. Do you really think I would have referred to him as the son of a Democratic Legisturalist/Governnor, if I hadn't seen that? I'll try to find the cite for later. And no, it wasn't sensitive information involving her work; it was her personal account, and he was looking for ammo for personal attacks to distribute. Ah, wait, here we go! http://www.sciam.com/blog/60-second-scienc...ak-w-2008-09-19 http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/palin_h.../22/133155.html And of course, it might be hard for Obama to argue against some of the claims, all things considered. Those quotes are all courtesy of Dreams of My Father, by Barack Obama. My point stands. You can be upset about smear campaigns all you want, I'm not going to stop you. Some of them have even been really stupid, like the recent rumors that Obama isn't actually an American citizen or that he's secretly a Taliban sleeper agent. But seriously? The idea that the Left has clean hands in all of this is ludicrous.

Well, as one of those evil, racist, society killing Republican bigots who thinks Obama's proper place is just under the lash, I can assure that there is plenty of hate coming out of both sides. "McCain is going to die in office." I know its because of his age, but everyone seems so sure of it I can't help but think there's plans out there to assassinate him if he fails to croak on schedule. "Abort Palin" also comes to mind. I take it you heard her private emails were hacked and distributed? I'm not talking about by any investigative agency, I'm talking about a Democratic legislature's son (might have been a governor). Quotes courtesy of Michelle Malkin And since we're such fans of videos on this site... So if all you're hearing is that McCain is evil and doing nothing but sliming the spotless Obama? Maybe its because you're not hearing the other side of the story. EDIT: Actually, I think Orson Scott Card sums it up best for me: http://www.ldsmag.com/ideas/081017light.html

A new story roughly based off of a few poems one of my friends wrote, as well as a continuation of a conversation they inspired. When a young temple priestess is roughly removed from the world she grew up in, what secrets will she discover about Willowbrook Manor? http://original.adult-fanfiction.org/story.php?no=600098252

Eh, its late in the fourth and the score is damned near tied. Is it any wonder that both sides are flinging as much mud as they can? As far as I can tell both sides have made up their mind at this point. My only suggestion at this point is that each side round up its idiots and send them off to a rather private barbecue on a deserted island, which just happens to be a military property expected to go through a new round of weapons tests...

I think he's probably considered far left in a political context, not necessarily in the world of the average citizen. More this than anything else.I've heard McCain panned as being "too liberal" in just the same way. About \half of it is probably a result of campaign masquaredes. One of the key bits in the Democratic primaries was the run-up between Clinton and Obama, because most of Obama's support has been coming in from the wings of the party, while most of hers was mostly the moderates-center. That was where McCain got his first slight boost. And while I probably sound like a broken record at this point, yeah, the thought of a Democratic Congress and a Democratic President strikes me as nothing more than the same of what we've dealt with for the past eight years. And yeah, considering the way the polls are looking, all I can do at this point is hope there's a another change of hands with the next Congressional rounds. As far as your personal politics Agaib, there's no way for me to tell. The only thing we've really discussed in any depth os personal relations to religion, and while there are those who will base their politics on their priest, something tells me that's not something I should expect from you... B)

So, of a Thirty Xanatos Pileup of Romance.... My best male friend (living in Colorado) is crushing on my best female friend (we live in New York), who is crushing on her best friend, who I'm supposed to confront on her behalf on Wednesday, despite having never met the guy. Fortunately he's apparently got feelings in return for her, they're just too scared to do anything about it. Help? I know the answer is pretty much straight forward at this point (what the Queen of the Court wants, the Court tries to get), but I'm slightly worried about screwing up the whole thing on my end of the deal...

I admit that I made up my mind to vote for McCain a long tme ago, because the timing isn't really right for Obama. He's too much a product of the far left, and with the Democrats holding Congress there is just too much of a chance to see a repeat of the last eight years. It wasn't Bush's poltics that was the problem, it was the bloody sense of entitlement that ran rampant after both the Legislature and White House was given to the Republicans. The Democrats in Congress have been basically doing the same thing the Far Right has been doing, and Obama is just going to make the same mistakes Bush did. If there was a stronger moderate presence on either side, I'd be happier, but right now the only two to show any sign of bipartsanship have been McCain and Biden. Unfortunately, Biden isn't an option....

I did get it right. If you're willing to ignore one aspect of his past, why not ignore all of it, or any of it that you choose? The past covers every major decision anyone makes, him, her, you, or me. I called him on something that troubles me. You're rebuttal was that I should ignore it or forget about it because it was in his past. I can and I do. There's an old saying that "Once is an accident, twice is a coincidence, and three times is enemy action". No one forced Obama to make these associations, and there are as many piling up for him as there are for Palin. Which yes, is a much more terrifiying for me because he is the lead on his ticket, and there is a much stronger chance that he'll end up as the President rather than Palin. Because it is a bad thing. Most of the major mistakes in American political history have occured when one side had full control of the active government. (The courts, while an effective tool for long term corrections, are just that, a long term tool. They require that someone bring case in the first place for something to get done. In order for someone to need to bring case, there has to be damage done in the first place.) If you really want a bipartisan government, if you really don't want a repeat of the last eight years of the inmates running the asylum, then why would you want to simply turn the reigns over to the other side? Case in point... Reagan left office with a 64% approval rating; one point behind Clinton's 65%. His biggest mistake was to cut too much out of government spending from some of the aid programs such as Medicaid. This is coupled with 3.4% economic growth a year, which probably helped pick up a lot of the slack. This being the eighties, and admittedly a Republican period in the executive branch, the environment was treated as much of the issue it has been for the last few years. Otherwise, damned good job or at least thats what most people think. Sort of the reason why most of the Republican nominees were pushing themselves as the next Reagan during the primaries. Unsurprisingly, Democratic controlled congress. Bush Senior wanted to try to get rid of the legendary national debt; he wanted to do so through budget cuts, the Democrats pushed for the higher taxes, as they had control of congress. They won. He helped push the North American Free Trade Agreement- there's 25 million new jobs under Clinton once it passed, or a 54% economic growth. Lets be fair and split the difference. Unfortunately, the whole thing with taxes (again, Republican trying to be nice with a Democrat controlled congress) cost him the election in '92. 54% approval rating, suffering heavily under the tax increases amongst the Republicans, who were pissed at his reneged promise of "No new taxes". Still, more than fifty percent isn't bad. Democratic controlled congress. Notice the trend? Strong Republican president with strong Democratic congress equals good things. Clinton comes up next. Strictly politics, we ignore the personal scandals. Not really much to say, is there? Strong economy, both on the tech and white paper side. Highest approval rating ever, and lots of reforms across the board. Ready for the not so surprising surprise? Strong Republican congress to keep a lid on him for the better part of 3/4ths of his term. There's that "Democratic Administration" you're so proud of. Now, for some more simple numbers, and to keep a long post short. The last time a Democrat President sat on a Democrat congress was Carter. Final approval rating? 34%. Last time a Republican president sat on a Republican congress? George W. Bush, and I have no idea how low the numbers have sunk for either side of that unhappy relationship. Which brings us to... No, I really can't. Any more than you can be positive that McCain is going to drop dead while in office. If either of us could, there would be people willing to pay us rather large sums of money in exchange for that knowledge. But what I can do is look at the past and learn the lessons that are waiting there. Time and again, giving both the Executive and Legislative branches to one party has led to trouble. When there is a strong leader on one side, and a strong opposition on the other, good things tend to happen for the American people. So I look at my choices now. I can vote for Obama, who has done nothing but alienate the right, and who would have a Congress coddling him into doing whatever it wishes. Or I can vote for McCain, who has proven that he can work with people who disagree with him to get stuff done. And I can look at Biden, and think its unfortunate that they didn't run him as the lead instead, so that Obama might actually get some functional experience to temper his outlook. And I can look at Palin, and realize that while there is a chance that she might end up in the hotseat, but the odds are low and lower still that she might be able to cause some damage. And I can look back at the past, and see who made what mistakes where, and what lessons they learned from it, and how those lessons might be applied to the future. And yeah, if the worry is about what might happen if a radical gets into the Oval office, then I am going to do what I can to make sure that the checks that are supposed to be in place to balance out the scales are actually working the way they were designed.

So, let me get this straight. If Obama makes a mistake or chooses to associate with radicals, we're supposed to simply accept this because "the past is the past"? And if Palin makes a mistake, or chooses to associate with radicals, we're supposed to be up in arms and willing to tear her down over it? For the third time, they are both radicals. The difference to me is that Palin isn't the lead on her ticket, probably won't end up in the office in the first place, and even if she did, wouldn't have a complacent congress willing to indulge her every whim. Obama, meanwhile, is the lead on his ticket. All we have to judge him on are his past actions and associations, which in just about everyway are just as bad as hers. And no, Biden won't be a moderating influence on him. Pelosi isn't going to try and stop him from doing anything either, not unless he tries to do something extremely stupid. Why would they? Now they've got the same situation the Republicans held for so long, and they plan on carrying on just the same. They haven't proven otherwise. So yeah. If I have a choice between Radical A and Radical B, I'd much rather the one that's going to have to fight to get anything done, with the expectation that anything their allowed to do will be so heavily negotiated that it just might actually accomplish something. I'd much rather have four years of political deadlock then have to spend yet another administration trying to repair the damage done trying to repair an already damaged structure. That's the very reason the whole systems of checks and balances were put into place.

Greenwizard, its not that you don't "live in our happy little box", or that we're sheeple who are automatically taken in by whatever we're told. Its quite the opposite, really. The problem is that you are basically accusing the Bush Administration of being culpable in the deaths of more than 3,000 people to achieve some political end. Is it possible? Yes. Just as it is possible that they weren't aware of what was going to happen, and mismanaged things because of human error. This, however, is not proof. This is not a cite, nor an argument. It's a Foaf, a friend of a friend. (Ok, second hand direct in this case.) We want some facts to actually look at. When DragonGoddess posted those facts on the F-15 fighters, I immediately checked them on Wikipedia. Ok, not entirely the best source, but there was also a massive gulf between her figures and the figure there, so I can see it taking almost twenty minutes for the planes to catch up, especially factoring in things like air resistance, turbulence, and having to match velocities. "I say so!" doesn't cut it, however. And yes, I took PorkChop to task on the same thing. As far as I know he's not a psychologist, and a few theories do not a diagnosis make for you. In the immortal words that never were, "Just the facts, ma'am."

No, I honestly wouldn't, for reasons I already made clear. The President is the Executive Branch. She would have control of the Armed Forces. She would be able to Veto laws, as long as Congress can't muster a 2/3rds majority. She has the power to issue executive orders, which don't actually quite amount to anything with out Congress passing the funding necessary. If Palin ended up as President, we'd have four years of political deadlock, with very little getting done. Yes, she's a right wing christian who thinks she can "pray away the gay". But there's no way that Congress would let her do anything but pray. Obama? Obama is basically being run on the same "Hey, I'm a nice guy" platform that got Bush elected. He's got the same Congressional majority that Bush had, and he's got quite a bit less experience with a few major black marks on his history that bothers me. Self admitted heavy narcotics use, ties to homebrewed terrorists, and a racist preacher that he somehow missed all the naughty sermons of for two decades? How does that not scare you, especially since he's got top billing on the ticket? Obama is just as radical as she is, more likely to actually be able to do something stupid, and won't have a congress to oppose him!

He announced his canidadcy from the house of a convicted serial bomber. We're not talking "Vote for me or the bad guys win. We're talking about a man who commited multiple murders and claims he "didn't do enough"! Is that clear enough? This is not a scare tactic, this is history! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Ayers We're not talking Osama Bin Laden, we're talking our own homegrown nutcase, ok? Good grief. I know both sides have their nutcases, odd jobs, and fanatics, and that both sides sling more mud then a backhoe on a rainy day. But don't ignore facts and history just because someone is a good speaker!

When it comes to the Vice Presidents, neither has anything to do with their running mate's actual position. Biden was picked just as much for his ability to appeal to those who wanted experience, as much as Palin was recruited to appeal to the far Right. That said, if McCain gets elected, we have a decent president who knows how to get stuff done, and can work with the opposition. If he passes, Congress will balk if Palin so much asks for permission to cross the street. (Either that, or they'll wait for a convenient bus to push her in front of.) If Obama or Biden gets elected to office, they could go swinging through the House on a vine while bucknaked, and all anyone would do is applaud. When it comes to idealists like Obama, especially ones with his kind of past and no real substance to judge them on, I demand they at least be in a position where they are forced to negotiate to get things done. It keeps them from doing too much damage. And that goes for the left or right.

I hate to say it, but PorkChop is right about this. The U.S. healthcare system isn't perfect, but then no system is. Part of the problem is that there's the myth that social healthcare will somehow help the cases like the ones listed; the ones where a normal insurance company won't be willing to help for whatever reason. The problem is that social healthcare is blind to the individual. A person dying has to wait behind a worried mother whose kid has the sniffles because she got there first. (That's a bit of an exaggeration, but eh.) Cases like the ones that have already been described need to compete for resources with cases that would normally be passed off either by or to the insurance companies. What really needs to be set up is a special needs category that ignores politics and simply deals with people in need. Not poor mothers whose kids have the sniffles, but people who have injuries and ailments, honest ones, who thus can't get insurance to help them with it. But how you expect Obama to help you get a job, or fix the economy when he helped get it into this mess (ACORN, the organization he used to work for, is not only being invesitigated in 11 states for voter fraud, but was a major lobbyist for subprime loans which help lead to the recent collapses), that I don't understand. Admittedly, I don't expect McCain to suddenly pull off any miracles either. But aside from the way their both pandering to the base at the moment, McCain has proven capable of working across the aisle. I know plenty of conservatives who consider him too liberal. Obama? Obama has done nothing but sit pretty on the left, and caters to some of the worst, and has done nothing to disprove his loyalty to them. Considering we're going to be sitting on a Democrat controlled congress for the majority of the term, I'd much prefer a loyal opposition capable of negotiation, then handing over the reigns to one side, closing my eyes, plugging my ears, and hoping not to get caught in the explosion.

I'm not arguing that; I actually agree that most of that is bullshit. My problem with it was more that it came off as an attack rather than an arguement. You won't win a debate by calling the other side crazy. You win a debate by proving the otherside wrong. In the end it doesn't matter why they believe what they believe, just so long as you have the evidence to support your arguments and can persuade those who are listening that you're in the right.

Careful, PorkChop. Better to stick to debating events and history when it comes to politics, rather than psychology. Its a rather stick prospect that no one ever walks away from unscathed. If you want to argue against conspiracy theories, bring evidence from the events themselves to the table. Please?

Dragon Goddess, there's a major difference between a scare tactic and a terrorist action. A scare tactic is something along the lines of "Vote for me, or Bugaboos will eat you're children!" It basically amounts to a threat. A terrorist action is not a scare tactic. It serves one of two purposes: it either convinces a major political body to change its policies, such as the train bombings in Spain managed to get Spain to pull out as much from the Middle East as it could, possbly even altering the outcomes of the Spanish elections. Or it serves to provoke a retaliation from the target that is in much greater proportion to the original attack, hopefully gaining sympathy for the people responsible in the first place. The first is the easiest to accomplish; its little more than large scale hostage taking, and after a certain point the public or government in question is simply unwilling to accept the amount of casulties they are facing and caves in. Again, see the Spanish example. Compare it to the British example, that happened around the same time. In one case there is a strong case that terrorist actions, and the threat of terrorist actions strongly influenced the fate of a government; in the second all it did was provoke a series of crackdowns on suspected threats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/11_March_2004..._train_bombings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_July_2005_London_bombings (Wikipedia, while not normally a good cite for most things, is actually rather good at summarizing events.) Now, I don't think I need a cite for what comes next, but when it comes to provoking reactions, 9/11 was a rather clear case. 3000+ dead lead to the innvasion and toppling of two different nations, one directly and one indirectly. The reason it didn't gain any sympathy for those who carried it out is because they decided to use civilian aircraft to attack civilians. Had they stuck to previous patterns and attacked embassies and military establishments, the responding counterattacks would have been more proportional, as they were in the past. However, when you basically anounce and carry out a threat that no one is safe from you, it is an equally safe bet that everyone is going to pile on you in a quick manner.

Actually, that sounds about right. Specifying on her side may be importan as well, because most people lay down on their backs. Curling up on your side is distinct enough to warrant being mentioned.

In regards to the original post; While I agree that this is a sad fact of reality, there are idiots out there, and America actually gives them a better chance of pulling off shit like this. Much as some people like to think otherwise, we're not a facist police state hellbent on destryoing personal freedoms. So getting the knowledge and materials to build a homemade gas weapon isn't really all that difficult. Where DK screws up is trying to blame this on "McCain Campaign scare tactics". Seriously, what? The Republican line about hitting back hard against terrorism has been on the air pretty much since 9/12, and this is quite an isolated incident. While it is more harmful in its actual consequences, this is really no different than burning crosses on front lawns or spray painting swastikas in front of temples. There are bloody stupid morons out there who hate people just because they are different, and just because this particular asshole decided to target muslims does not mean this can be laid on the doorstep of any one particular party. Or are all hate crimes now the fault of xenophobic republican conservatives? On Bush, wars, and invasion; kettle, pot, black, let's cook steaks. Afghanistan was invaded as a response to a terrorist attack. A couple of real bastards decided to take commerical airliners and turn them into weapons of mass murder. We went after the people who were responsible, and in the process got rid of a whole bunch of similiarly sick bastards. Now we've got a fairly friendly ally who is trying to be a better place to live all around. Iraq: We invaded Iraq way back when in 1991. There were actually two seperate operations. Operation Desert Shield was intended to be a defensive action should Iraqi forces invade Saudi Arabia or another friendly nation. Operation Desert Storm was the operation that kicked Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. At the time there was a large presence of weapons of mass destruction; they'd been used by Hussein in the Iraq-Iran war in the 80s, and quite a large number of them got destroyed by the U.N. in the 90s. Unfortunately, around 1998 Hussein gets stubborn and starts odering out the inspectors. This leads to Operation Desert Fox in 1998. Guess what? Clinton was president for that one. Hussein agrees to let the inspectors back in, and manages to go for a few more years. Then he tries to play chicken with the recent Bush Administration, and loses big time. It should be noted that at the point of the invasion just about every major power with an interest in the region thought he had or was working on more WMDs. Georgia- Russia starts making noise about possible attacks on peacekeepers who are there to safeguard russian nationals living in another country. (This is what happens when you decide to transplant portions of your population when a major communist nation.) There may or may not be hints that the region of Georgia in question might or might not be thinking the way the Southern states were in the 1800s. Russia invades. (About the same if Great Britain had invaded the South in the name of protecting British colonists/nationals living there). It turns into a major international debacle. The point? Invading hostile dictatorships who have or had actively threatened your nation or allies is pretty much SOP for most nations. Invading minor democracies a portion of your size over some people who may or may not want to be a part of your nation? That tends to raise eyebrows.

Ciaphias Caine: Hero of the Imperium by Sandy Mitchell. Take the world's most depressing universe ever, and set a comedy in it based on a heroic coward...