162 comments on Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #3
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
162 comments on Georgia Conflict - Open Thread #3
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
| Show without comments | PDF version
Search The Oil Drum with Google
Support The Oil Drum
Recently on TOD:World
TOD:Campfire
TOD:Europe
- Peak Gold, Easier to Model than Peak Oil? - Part I
- Carbon Capture and Storage
- Oilwatch Monthly November 2009
TOD:Canada
- In this house, we obey the laws of thermodynamics!
- The Round-Up: October 24, 2008
- Compressed Air Energy Storage - How viable is it?
TOD:Australia/NZ
- International Energy Agency calls 'Peak' on OECD Oil Demand
- Australian Senate: Peak Oil motion defeated 31:6
- The Bullroarer - Friday 20th November 2009
TOD:Net Energy
Blogroll
Energy Sites
- The Coming Global Oil Crisis
- Die Off
- Dry Dipstick
- Energy Bulletin
- From the Wilderness
- Life After the Oil Crash
- Peak Oil Crisis
- Peak Oil News and Message Boards
- Powerswitch
- Rigzone
- Matthew Simmons
- Wolf at the Door
Environment & Sustainability Sites
- The Daily Green
- EcoGeek
- Eco Street
- Green Car Congress
- Green Options
- green.alltop.com
- Gristmill
- RealClimate
- Sustainablog
- Treehugger
- WorldChanging
Blogs
- Casaubon's Book
- Cleantech Blog
- Clusterf
k Nation (Jim Kunstler) - The Cost of Energy
- David Strahan
- Early Warning
- The Energy Blog
- European Tribune
- GraphOilology
- Health After Oil
- jeffvail.net
- Mobjectivist
- Peak Energy (Australia)
- Peak Energy (USA)
- R-Squared
- Resource Insights
Finance & Economics Blogs
- The Big Picture
- Calculated Risk
- The Crash Course
- Ecological Economics
- Econbrowser
- Environmental Economics
- Infectious Greed
- The Mess That Greenspan Made
- Mish's Global Economic Trend Analysis
Organizations
Peak Oil Primers
Beware email scams!
Beware email scams claiming to be from this site. We do not have any job openings. If anyone contacts you about a job at The Oil Drum, do not reply to them, and definitely do not give them any personal information or send them money. Read more here.
“We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them.”
—Albert Einstein
User login
Contact
- Content: editors at theoildrum dot com
- Tech support: support at theoildrum dot com
Personnel
- Editors: Nate Hagens, Gail the Actuary, Prof. Goose
- DrumBeat Editor: Leanan
- Contributors: ace, Engineer-Poet, Heading Out, jeffvail, JoulesBurn, Sam Foucher, Robert Rapier
- TOD:Campfire: Glenn, Jason Bradford
- TOD:Europe: Chris Vernon, Euan Mearns, Francois Cellier, Jerome a Paris, Luís de Sousa, Rembrandt, Rune Likvern, Ugo Bardi
- TOD:Canada: benk, Libelle
- TOD:ANZ: Big Gav, Phil Hart, aeldric
- Emeritus: Stuart Staniford
- Technician: Super G
License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 United States License.
GAIA Host Collective
The fact of the matter is that Moscow is right and has done everything it possibly could to avoid conflict. The ones who started it were the Georgians, who now go whining to NATO.
I don't think you could ever consider invading another country and killing thousands of citizens "right", but it is highly likely Moscow did what it thought would best protect Moscow interests. There is alot of realpolitik in play that Bush has no fucking clue how to spell, let alone understand and participate in.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/152087
I think this article is probably a more accurate reasoning of what's happening. Russia wants back what it lost and will try everything in its power to regain it. Meanwhile, our clown of a president has ignored one of the most powerful nations on earth to focus on a bunch of rabble rousing criminals (al Quaeda) and the leader of a neutralized nation (Iraq). I think losing Georgia will be a disaster for the west from an energy perspective, but its our government's own fault.
I think I'm closer to your position than to most others here.
The American people have not been educated to understand that great powers normally have spheres of influence, and their extension can be construed as an act of war. We are taught to see all our conflicts as crusades of good against evil, which puts all rival powers in the Axis of Evil with no right to a sphere of influence. More alarmingly, it makes America's sphere of influence "Good" incarnate, and thus we are glad that our leaders aspire to make it worldwide, which it should never be.
We have a plausibly deniable sphere of influence, that manifests whenever we want to take credit for the accomplishments of a South Korea, but dissolves into "national self-determination" whenever we want to look the other way at genocide in Guatemala or the Israeli nuclear program.
Troops in 150 countries. Why is this not an issue in the presidential campaign? Because we know it's suicide to criticize it as long as American-occupied means "Good" in the voters' eyes.
Greg: Your position re Iraq is both popular and curious. The clown stumbles around yet manages to secure Iraq oil access for multinationals, something they wanted yet could not acheive for decades. Fortunes have been and will be made off Iraq, yet the whole thing is a huge example of incompetence. IYO which objective re Iraq was not reached? It appears to have worked out pretty well for the orchestrators and the connected.
Things are working now, but what happens if a person with a more nationalistic side (and nationalizing tendencies) becomes Prime Minister? The current friendly regime wants US troops to put out on a timetable ... a less friendly regime might want the oil comapnies to pull out.
Yes, but this whole thing would not be easy for anyone to pull off, clown or master strategist/genius. I just find the myth of the clown worrying about the evildoer Hussein to be a joke. It is amazing that in 2008 people still focus on what politicians say and not what they do.
Exactly. Everyone seems to know and recognize that politicians lie, but for some reason people accept their *stated* goals as their *actual* goals (and their *stated* beliefs as their *actual* beliefs.) Doesn't make much sense.
You even see this in MSM reporting. For example, the BBC will write an article about Iran and say that the US is opposing them because "the US believes Iran is making nuclear weapons" instead of the far more accurate "the US claims to believe that Iran is making nuclear weapons."
Once again, Regime Change in Iraq was stated US policy during Clinton/Gore and was brought to fruition under BushCo with the approval of Pelosi LLC. Regime Change in Iran was/is stated US policy since 1980. The Anti-Communist Crusade known as the Cold War was/is stated US policy toward Russia, and said policy continues despite Russia no longer being communist. US Imperial expansion was/is stated US policy since 1947-48, and achieving "global dominance" (and other similar phrasings) is currently stated US policy. All the above are bi-partisan policies and are fully promoted by the Propaganda and Indoctrination Systems--truths more people are becoming aware of, but the minority of those in the know is frightfully small.
I think one of the lessons Russia's leaders will learn is that Russia's future does NOT lie in "looking west" a la Peter the Great and a longstantding ideological battle within Russia for centuries. Europe needs Russia far more than Russia needs Europe. More interesting is the fact that Russia doesn't need the USA, but the USA needs Russia--hydrocarbons and other fundamental resources to be rapidly extracted and sold on the global market, which will serve to keep the prices of such cheaper than otherwise.
"the US claims to believe that Iran is making nuclear weapons."
Considering that US intelligence agencies do not think Iran is making nuclear weapons (NIE last year), even that is really not true. Perhaps something like "some extremists in the US who think they know better than their intelligence agencies claim to believe Iran might be making nuclear weapons..."