And that makes me very concerned.

So aside from the "cute" comment thrown in for fun, I try to put forth as persuasive, fact based, pertinent discourse as is at my command.

And unlike you I am willing to work it through to its fruition. 

I certainly don't mind the occasional, (or worthy regular for that matter), funny tie in or allegorical statement, but in the end I would like to think that all this rhetoric means something, and is going somewhere.

You seem not to subscribe to that theory, so if I seem miffed at you, that would be the underlying cause. :-) 

..."The Law of Succinctness". So we agree that Putin has not changed then, even if we view him differently.

What are some examples of Bush' bad judgement about people?

I know from personal experience, Bush was heavily criticized by the right for his "Putins eyes" statement. I think that was a universal one! LOL.

Nuclear, ;-), funny! 

I have indeed it seems spent my time engaging many targets here, so it leaves little time for looking for the bright side kind of thinking, ;-) But I will try that ... 

Many of us don't always act out as consistently. Sometimes circumstances alter our perceptions and conclusions.

Good for you.

US humiliated, Nato and Europe split, in other words, in the US American political discourse, it was a good very week for McCain.

Six Days That Broke One Country and Reshaped the World Order

The American "train and equip" mission for the Georgian military is six years old. It has been destroyed in as many days. And with it, Georgia's Nato ambitions.

In less than a week, Putin has invaded another country, effectively partitioned Georgia in a lightning campaign, weakened his arch-enemy, President Mikheil Saakashvili, divided the west, and presented a fait accompli. The impact - locally, regionally, and globally - is huge.

Provocative calls by McCain for the US to support and identify with Georgia’s actions – “we are all Georgians” -- constituted repeated, direct interference in the conduct of American foreign policy, complicating efforts to obtain a cease fire and the removal of invading troops.

-- Bush's and McCain's overblown rhetoric may have created unrealistic expectations of US help, despite the fact the US never had any intention of rescuing Georgia.

This week in history, peace took a step backwards. It was a good week for McCain.

Post moderist political thinking = no fixed categories, stable sets of values,
or common sense meanings to be understood in their scholarly
exploration. Liberal approaches do not aid in understanding these types
of situations; there is no individual or social or institutional
structure whose values can impose a meaning or interpretive narrative.

You are certainly a post modernist thinker.

You're minimizing my views down to "feelings"??
Come on, now.

I did not mean it to minimize your view, if it seems like that, I apologize.

This has nothing to do with "should". It's based on what "IS" and what the proper and prudent course of action "IS". The one dealing in "should" and feelings is you. You have ideas on how things "should be" based on your "feelings" of what Georgia and Russia represent to you. Perhaps you don't see it that way.

LOL! Funny we both see one another's that way!

And that is not pertinent to how the world works, historically.
Sure it is. It's very pertinent. History is full of examples of the folly I'm criticizing as well as the total disregard of what I value. And at nearly each and every turn, the ability for a side to take my route has been a viable option. Sometimes taken, sometimes not. In this case, it's perfectly within our government's ability to choose that route.

:-) I meant the relevant historical context of Russian-American experiences.

Yes, economic pressure is just that, pressure on the government to behave so we in the world mustn't suffer the barbaric consequences of their governments unenlightened actions.
Couple things. That bolded word represents a causal "if, then" that you apply in faith and nothing more.

I lost you here? Sorry?

Secondly, you're going in a glass house with the word "unenlightened". And once again, you're unquestioned certainty in how you view the matter precedes all of this.

No, I disagree. I think unprovoked, or to acquiesce for purposes of advancing the dialog, to simply over run a sovereign country, especially taken in light of what we know in this particular instance, is unenlightened. I guess I could choose another adjective, poor, ignorant, etc.

make pretend it isn't really happening, then getting into a much worse situation later.
Strawman.

Well in essence, by doing nothing, what are you doing? Crossing your fingers and hoping for the best?

There's plenty to be done.
Your assertion that we can stand on the sidelines and do nada is quite frankly, nonsense.
It's also a strawman.

Please expand on what you mean.

It is not a geo-political option, not if we have any intention on being around to see democracies flourish. Otherwise Russia will just run rough shot over the world where and when they feel the want.
Slow down. Again, such lucidity on the matter from you. You seem to have it all figured out. I don't agree that it's so simple.

Well, in a time of crisis, you have to choose. You can't sit around talking about straw men and glass houses. I am basing my point of view just like I do everything else in my life. I am looking at whats worked best in the past. Ronald Reagan was by far the most effective POTUS handling the Russians, he would do what I'm suggesting I believe.

It is most certainly in your best interest to act, if you want a free world to do business in, it is also in the Russian peoples best interest.
And the Russian government as well by extension.
Your options are not the only ones. That's part of the problem I have with your position.

Ok granted, but we must make the best choice and defend it.

Where do I draw the line in the sand?
First of all, that whole question rests on the premise that you are right about Russia and the turns this affair could take. I don't see it.
Second of all, your drama-laden plea to emotion is simply not enough nor is it accurate enough to justify what you're saying.

The Russians whole history is filled with aggressive territorial dominance. This just happened, what is there to justify? Why do you discount the rights of the Georgians at the grace of the Russians, I find this a bit strange.