BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 03:36 PM

Equally interesting one from the Guardian today CarolC:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/sep/01/georgia.russia1

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:04 PM

Lox,

CarolC had informed me that it was totally, and solely the fault of the Georgians.


I was merely showing that "her" side had a little blood on it's hands.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:27 PM

BB,

I understand all that - I've been following the thread.

Carol is a tenacious debater and so are you.

I respect both of you immensely, more so after witnessing the way you have argued this case.

But in entrenching yourselves in the bipolar scenario which exists above (which I understand does not necessarily reflect your personal view) you end up losing touch with the fact that you are contributing to a communal thread.

Your debate is very specific and your reasons and Carols for engaging as you are are complex, and the whole "I was only ... " "well I'm just trying to ..." thing could go on forever.

Carol raises some interesting ideas as do you.

I think you could cut each other a bit of slack. Carol deserves some respect for exploring the deeper sinister side of the whole thing, just as you do for being a spanner in the works for her.

In the end, working together, you fine hone an interesting possible scenario that stands the test of ruthless scrutiny.

Funnily, I actually note what I read to be a consistent note of affection and respect for carol and her ideas in the way you debate with her, despite your stubborn refusal to accept her opinion. She is determined to think for herself and not to be railroaded and that is to her credit.

God help anyone who gets in the way of the two of you if ever you unite on some point.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 04:47 PM

I have stated that Georgia acted in an unfortunate manner- but have not yet gotten across to CarolC that her viewpoint ( IMHO) is not showing awareness of the situation.


"Funnily, I actually note what I read to be a consistent note of affection and respect for carol and her ideas in the way you debate with her, despite your stubborn refusal to accept her opinion. She is determined to think for herself and not to be railroaded and that is to her credit."

That is true- We are often on opposite sides, but when she opens her eyes and sees the entire picture, I do believe that she is well intentioned. I just see her being one-sided, most of the time- more so than myself (IMO) . I would not want her to accept my points without thought- I just would like her to at least think about them.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:06 PM

It's like getting blood from a stone ...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:08 PM

btw - that remark was tongue in cheek and directed at BB ... but Carol may feel free to take humorous umbridge as well should she so wish...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:11 PM

Would it be better if I said " I just see her being one-sided, most of the time- EVEN more so than myself (IMO) "


I try to look at all sides ( and stories) then decide what to believe. I do not see that some others here do that- they seem to decide a viewpoint and then go look for facts to support it. IMO, of course- and I am human, and fallible. But I try to be aware of that...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:13 PM

I think you and carol share that view of each other.

I see both of you as being aware of a much more complex world view than your average Joe.

The depth of your discussions and the difficulty you have persuading each other of your views is testament to that.

I learn a lot from both your posts.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,beardedbruce
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:21 PM

"I learn a lot from both your posts. "

That is one of the nicest statements I have gotten, here. I cannot ask for a greater complement.

Just make sure it is BOTH our posts- maybe even include some others.
I do not claim to have all the facts, all the time- I do read what CarolC posts, and have modified my views based on that, on occasion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 01 Sep 08 - 05:36 PM

Sorry I haven't been able to get to this--up in PA at a folk weekend. Among other things, singing sea songs while swimming in a pond. That's good exercise.




Re: topic: You can say that any conspiracy theory is possibly true. As my favorite foreign policy analyst, Shania Twain, says: "That don't impress me much".

My points are these:

The Scheunemann theory is in fact a conspiracy theory. It is obviously an alleged conspiracy. "McCain gets to look tough" as a result of a move by Georgia due to the machinations of a McCain advisor. Scheunemann was part of the cabal that engineered the war in Iraq. "There are telltale signs" that he played the same role here.

In fact there are no telltale signs at all that he played the same role here.   Any allegation that he did is the active imagination of a columnist--imagination being a positive attribute in a columnist.    Readers however should actually be using sense and logic--and demanding proof. Too bad many Mudcatters don't seem to want to do this.

Scheunemann (and McCain) have always demonized Russia. Fine. But there is as of now precisely zero evidence that he said anything to Saakashvili or otherwise encouraged Saakashvili's stupid move in August 2008 to try end South Ossetia's de facto independence.

And Scheunemann's alleged plan was obviously not to be made public. Therefore it is--to anybody who can use a dictionary--a conspiracy. And a theory--since it obviously has not been proven.

So it is--guess what--a conspiracy theory.

And, as of now, one with absolutely no supporting evidence. If there is in fact any evidence, it would seem reasonable for any supporters of this theory to start actually providing some.

To call it a conspiracy theory is, far from an ad hominem attack, an accurate depiction of it. In the most charitable interpretation, the poster who called it an ad hominem attack evidently does not know what such an attack is.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:02 AM

I notice that at least one poster is still mischaracterizing my stance on this issue. I have already shown in a previous post in what way my stance is being mischaracterized.

The question is not whether or not both sides are guilty of doing bad things. The question is who is responsible for the situation being what it is today.

Since all peoples have a right to self-determination, it is the people who are attempting to deny others that right who are responsible for the situation being what it is today. Which is what makes them the ones who are in the wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:08 AM

There is also precisely zero evidence that the article I posted about Scheunemann is not true. Since the person who is calling that article and the discussion about it "consipracy theory" is the only one who is putting forth any kind of argument about it, that person is the only one who has to provide evidence in support of that argument.

No one else is making any argument about it, and so therefore, no one else needs to provide any evidence in support of arguments they are not making.

Duh!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:20 AM

The term "conspiracy theory" is something that is misused on these threads, from time to time, in my opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 12:26 AM

The term "conspiracy theory" was invented by people specifically for the purpose of shutting other people up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 06:06 AM

"The question is not whether or not both sides are guilty of doing bad things. The question is who is responsible for the situation being what it is today."

This situation is appearing more and more to me like a Mafia blood feud.

Who started it?

In my opinion that is the least important point.

In my opinion the most important points are:

1. How is it affecting the civilian populations of all national/racial groups involved.

2. What realistic solutions exist to ensure stability, peace and perhaps even prosperity for those civilians.

Distinguishng who started it won't help, because it is completely unrealistic to expect any of the parties involved to agree on this, or indeed not to become more inflamed by the whole issue.

Your point about self determination is of course entirely correct, but depending on which corner you're in, it could mean that Russia is right to support the self determination of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but it could also mean that Georgia has the right to determine the best way of handling a crisis that is occurring inside its internationally recognized borders.

But all that is a pointless vortex of endless knit picking that I do not intend to indulge any further.

Because while we carry on with that, the two most insincere men in the world (Butt and Pushin)are posturing and flexing their flabby torsos at each other like a couple of motorcycle boys at a gay pride festival.

This whole crisis has nothing to do with Georgis, Abkhazia, Ossetia or even oil. It is about national ego.

(hope you enjoyed the imagery)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 09:19 AM

Washington Post:

Understanding Russia

Moscow's aggression is aimed not at Georgia's territory but at Europe's new democracies.

Tuesday, September 2, 2008; Page A14

THERE WAS a telling juxtaposition of headlines from Russia yesterday. On one side you had President Dmitry Medvedev claiming a "sphere of influence" outside Russian borders and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov warning the West not to arm Georgia. On the other side, you had the murder of Magomed Yevloyev, a journalist whose independence had angered the government. He was arrested, shot in the head by police while riding in the back of a police car, and dumped by the side of the road.

This is a moment for clarity in thinking about Russia, which is forcibly occupying sizable chunks of a neighboring country and claiming it has every right to do so. Some in the West are tempted to agree. After all, the United States and its allies invaded Iraq and attacked Serbia; why can't Russia do the same to Georgia? Why can't it have a NAFTA of its own?

Here's why. The United States, Britain and other nations deposed the Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein because he repeatedly violated his promises to the United Nations, after his earlier invasion of Kuwait, to rid himself of weapons of mass destruction and prove that he had done so. They invaded Serbia to protect the people of Kosovo from mass ethnic cleansing and destruction. In both cases, reasonable people can argue that it was wrong to act without U.N. authorization; they can make a case that the campaigns were unwise on many other grounds.

What they can't argue is that the allies were motivated by a desire for conquest or occupation; as the presidential campaign has shown, the American people can hardly wait to pull their troops out and leave Iraqis to manage their own affairs. NAFTA, meanwhile, was freely entered into by three democratically elected governments. If Canada wants out, the United States will not seize Ottawa.

Russia, on the other hand, is seeking to overthrow a democratically elected government precisely because that government does not want to be subjugated to Moscow. Mr. Medvedev's claim of a Georgian genocide, after his own government published casualty figures of 200 or so, is deliberately preposterous; he is mocking the very idea of humanitarian intervention. As Russia under president-turned-prime-minister Vladimir Putin has become less and less democratic, it has become increasingly aggressive toward neighboring democracies. The more democratic those neighbors become -- see Ukraine, Poland, Estonia, Lithuania, Latvia -- the more hostile Russia becomes.

The brave Mr. Yevloyev, who returned to his hometown in the province of Ingushetia despite ample warning that Mr. Putin's thugs were waiting for him, may seem like a footnote to all this. But his death -- like the deaths of Anna Politkovskaya and so many other journalists and liberal politicians before him, like the death of the free press and open debate -- is at the heart of the story. Mr. Putin is turning Russia into something very like a fascist state, and its natural inclination will be to replicate itself abroad. "The Cold War was clearly about ideologies," Russia's ambassador to the European Union, Vladimir Chizhov, noted yesterday, and then claimed: "We are living in a different world today. There is no ground for talk about a second Cold War."

Judging by the E.U.'s feckless response yesterday to Russia's aggression, many European leaders still want to believe Mr. Chizhov. But what is happening in Georgia is very much about ideology, and the longer the Europeans pretend otherwise, the greater the damage they will have to contain.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 09:37 PM

Who is responsible is the most important thing to take into consideration if one is concerned with the wellbeing of the civilians of the area if those responsible intend to continue doing the thing that caused the problem in the first place, because as long as people continue to try to suppress others' right to self determination and to continue subjugating them, the violence will not stop. That's just reality. And the Government of Georgia has made it abundantly clear that it fully intends to continue doing those things.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:22 PM

So sorry that at least one poster does not seem to like it when a conspiracy theory is pointed out.

Which part do you not accept--that the Scheunemann theory is a conspiracy or that it is a theory?

Also, the idea that any half-baked idea must be refuted by the target is totally absurd.

The idea that Scheunemann was part of a cabal that allegedly engineered the war in Georgia-- (Georgia's attempt to end South Ossetia's de facto independence)-- has as much validity as the idea that Obama is a closet Moslem.

In each case there is precisely zero evidence to support the theory.

The burden in a theory with zero evidence is on the person who puts forward that theory---and not on the target to refute it.

If Mudcatters don't understand that elementary bit of logic, there is no point in any reasonable person trying to discuss a political topic.

And if you do in fact think there is evidence to support the columnist's Scheunemann theory, you are yet again cordially invited to reveal that evidence. In all honesty I would be happy to see it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 02 Sep 08 - 11:40 PM

Well, I guess by that logic, it makes perfectly good sense to assume that Obama is a closet Muslim.

               And moving right along, why would it make sense to determine that on beligeret party is Wright, and the other is Muslim?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 12:37 AM

I'm still waiting for some evidence that the article about Scheunemann is false.


Still waiting...


still... waiting...

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:30 AM

If I understand carols point then she is saying that she doesn't claim that the article is true.

She is saying that she merely posted the article.

She did not present an argument about whether the article was true or false.

Therefore she does not have to present evidence too support her argument as she never made one.

She appears to be saying that the only argument that has been advance about the article has been one claiming it is false.

Therefore she awaits evidence to support that argument.

My point of view on this question is that it serves no real purpose in the context of this thread or the debate about georgia.

In my opinion, the article helps to provide an interesting perspective that could be investigated further, but until the implications it makes turn into definite allegations supported by evidence, it continues to have "idle speculation" status in terms of real usefulness.

As regards who is responsible, attempting to prove who started it will not provide a solution. Remember whhat I said about messy blood feuds. Well this is one.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 05:55 AM

I disagree with the premise that it is a messy blood feud and that it serves no good purpose to determine who is causing the problem. If we want the problem to be solved, we need to know its cause. Whenever one group of people attempts to subjugate and suppress another people, violence is the result. And when that happens, the violence doesn't end until the subjugation and suppression stop. The South Ossetians are happy to no longer be a part of Georgia. They are happy to receive protection from Russia, against further hostile acts from Georgia. The NATO countries are now ratcheting up the violent rhetoric, as is Georgia itself, instead of just allowing the South Ossetians to get on with their lives and be free.

The other problem is that the US is using the situation in Georgia, South Ossetia, and Abkhazia as a part of its program for increasing its global hegemony. This is not something that we can just sit back and be silent about. They are increasing their stranglehold on most of the world, as well as the people of the US, and they are waging multiple wars of aggression as a part of this agenda. This, of course, stimulates a similar response from countries that rightly perceive themselves to be under threat by the US and its stated goals of breaking up and suppressing any emerging powers that could arise to compete with US supremacy. This is not speculation on my part. It's their stated doctrine. This means endless war. The only way to make it stop is for people to recognize what is going on and to take corrective action in their respective countries. For those of us in the US, that means making sure as many people as possible know what is going on. And that means identifying the source of the problem, and pointing it out for everyone to see. This is what I am attempting to do, along with speaking up for the right of all peoples to self-determination.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 06:06 AM

Carol,

I think you are right about America's power play, but I think that Russia is doing exactly the same thing and I think the Goergia Ossetia thing is just as much an excuse for Putin as it is for Bush/McCain to rip their shirts off and beat their chests.

Putin - Me shoot tiger (in humanitarian way)!

Bush - Me tougher than man who shoot tiger!

tossers!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 06:15 AM

The problem with that perspective is that Russia has been reacting to the US, not the other way around. The US started it when it withdrew unilaterally from the ABM treaty, and it has been pursuing many other programs that Russia rightly perceives as a threat to their national security.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 07:46 AM

Fair enough, but how has the US influenced Russian state sponsored murders of journalists, ex spies, billionaires etc?

Russia is no innocent bystander.

I suspect that what you are describing is the tip of the iceberg - just as that is likely to be the case in the localised Georgia/Ossetia conflict.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 08:52 AM

It's hard for me, as someone who lives in the country that brought the world the big lie of the incubator babies in Iraq (not to mention the WMD), to trust the US and the UK when they accuse Russia of murdering those people. The government of my country has been fomenting a lot of big lies about a lot of people in other countries who have tried to maintain their country's independence from the US empire, and they have been doing it for the purpose of creating justifications for all kinds of illegal and immoral things that they wanted to do.

Do a Google search on "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man".

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:02 PM

Fair point again, but the difference between the Iraq war and the whole litvinienko thing was that the latter was a massive scandal over here that stood the test of media scrutiny, unlike the gulf war which was well and truly picked to pieces by the all the main British News channels well before the invasion took place with the result that a million people demonstrated in Hyde park in Britains largest ever public demonstration of dissent.

There was plenty of media scrutiny of the Litvinienko affair that found itself drawn consistently in the direction of the KGB, not least because Litvinienko himself approached the media and the police for help before he was poisoned warning them that he was a target of the KGB and he feared for his life.

His fears turneed out to have been well founded.

As for the Billionaire in the cage - I have deliberately provided a partisan link here, but google will offer plenty of others to choose from on the subject of Mikhail Khodorkovsky

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 01:07 PM

And here's the BBC article about the murder of Russian Journalist Anna Politkovskaya

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:02 PM

Does this news article tell us anything?


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/2669248/Dick-Cheney-to-take-fight-against-Russias-oil-dominance-to-Az

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:38 PM

That page is unavailable (the one in the Telegraph about Dick Cheney).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ed T
Date: 03 Sep 08 - 03:51 PM

? Here is the text:

Dick Cheney to take fight against Russia's oil dominance to Azerbaijan
Dick Cheney, the US vice-president will arrive in the Caucasus on a mission to prevent Russia from gaining a stranglehold over Central Asia's vast reserves of energy.

By Damien McElroy in Tbilisi and Bruno Waterfield in Brussels
Last Updated: 12:36AM BST 03 Sep 2008

As he starts a tour of Georgia, Azerbaijan and Ukraine, Mr Cheney will try to allay fears that Russia's campaign in Georgia has fatally damaged a cornerstone of the West's energy policy.

That message will be particularly potent in Azerbaijan's capital Baku, once the capital of the Soviet oil industry and now a pivotal ally of the United States.

The Caucasus region, between the gas-rich Caspian Sea and Turkey, provides the only energy pathway from Central Asia to Europe that does not traverse Russia or Iran.

"If Azerbaijan tilts to Russia there goes 15 years of US energy diplomacy," said a Western diplomat in Baku. "Cheney has the history and personal clout to make this trip clearly focused on energy."

Mr Cheney's unparalleled reputation as a defender of US interests and close ties to the oil industry means the vice president is uniquely placed to deliver a tough message to Russia.

John Hannah, his national security advisor said: "The overriding priority, especially in Baku, Tbilisi and Kiev, will be the same: a clear and simple message that the United States has a deep and abiding interest in the well-being and security of this part of the world."

After European leaders bickered over how to deal with Russia at a summit on Monday, Mr Cheney will have to shore up Azerbaijan's confidence in Western support.

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, the Georgian prime minister Lado Gurgenidze said that without efforts by Gordon Brown, the EU position would have been weaker.

"We are aware that the document perhaps would have read differently if it had not been for the efforts of the British delegation," he said.

The vulnerability of pipelines running from Azerbaijan to Turkey was dramatically illustrated by Russia's war in Georgia, when exports were halted and expatriate energy workers evacuated.

"Russia didn't need to attack the pipelines running through Georgia but by stopping the flow west it ensured that the great fears over the system have been realised," said Andrew Neff, an analyst at research firm, Global Insight. "Cheney must ensure that Azerbaijan doesn't take the wrong message from events in Georgia."

Supplies of Azeri gas are crucial to European efforts to build the 2,000 mile Nabucco pipeline through Turkey to Austria by 2013. Its inauguration would erode Russian's dominant role in energy supplies to Central and Eastern Europe.

America has been a strong proponent of the project. "Without Azeri gas, the Nabucco pipeline is dead on the drawing board," said Mr Neff, who concluded that Russia's campaign in Georgia had given it a "de facto veto" over energy flows through Georgia.

Russia has already attempted to coax Azerbaijan away from its Western backers. President Dmitry Medvedev used a visit to Baku in the spring to herald "co-operation prospects" between the two states.

Gazprom, the large Russian oil firm, has offered to pay market rates for its gas, which at a time of rising prices is more attractive than the long-term supply deal prices proposed by the West.

Ilham Aliyev, Azerbaijan's president, has been solidly pro-Western since succeeding his father in 2003.

However, despite its rapid economic growth, Azerbaijan remains vulnerable to Russia intervention in the breakaway enclave of Nagorno-Karabakh. As in the Georgian territories of Abkhazia and South Ossetia, separatists in Nagorno-Karabakh rely on Russian backing.

Diplomats have urged Mr Aliyev not to succumb to the short-term pressures of Russian expansionism. "It's 'don't lose sight of the long-term goal for a short-term fix'," said one official. "Ultimately Azerbaijan needs direct access to the Western market to remain independent of Russia."

Senior American conservatives have rallied behind Mr Cheney's trip, possibly his last significant act before President George W Bush's term ends in January. "The security of Georgia and Azerbaijan are vital American interests for a variety of reasons," said John Bolton, a former US ambassador to the United Nations. "Including the critical corridor they provide to get oil and natural gas out of the Caspian Basin region without transiting Russia or Iran. Europe should also understand this key point."

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:04 AM

Do you think Obama is a closet Moslem? If not, why do you think the Scheunemann theory has any more validity than the "closet Moslem" theory? Neither is graced with one shred of evidence.

Therefore anybody who brings either up--without clearly stating that there is no basis for it--is a rumor-monger. Not surprising in a columnist. But again, readers should be more astute and discriminating.

Again, the burden is on those who purvey arrant nonsense to give their evidence--not on the target to refute the drivel.

Just saying you are bringing it up as a possibility is no defense. That's just what the fools--or worse--who talk about the "Obama as closet Moslem" idea say. Is that fine with you?

It's time for people all over the political spectrum to stop spreading stupid conspiracy theories. And that's what both of these are.

The Scheunemann theory, foolishly in my view, relies on a conspiracy theory rather than the stupidity of political leaders--a much more reliable source of problems.

And, as I say, the burden is clearly on anybody who believes the Scheunemann theory to--finally--start coming up with some actual evidence. Or admit there is none.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Riginslinger
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:13 AM

Yes, it's time for Obama to come out of the closet!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:13 AM

I notice the person who is demanding that I provide documentation for arguments I have not even made is unwilling to provide any documentation whatever for their own arguments, both in this thread as well as in the Palin for VP thread (about her fighting corruption in her state).

People who behave like that have no credibility in any kind of discussion.

As I said before, my guess is that this person just hounds people for no good reason because they take pleasure in gratuitously abusing others.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 12:14 AM

Either that, or they are a troll. (Probably some of both.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 04:42 AM

Ron

"Therefore anybody who brings either up--without clearly stating that there is no basis for it--is a rumor-monger. Not surprising in a columnist. But again, readers should be more astute and discriminating."

But there is no evidence either way, so Carol is in no more of a position to state it as false than she does tpo state that it is true.

In the meantiime, as this is a discussion forum, not a court of law, she is perfectly entitled to draw our ettention to articles which contain information that is of relevant interest and which could be interesting to bear in mind in the event that any more information surfaces which lends them credence.

You either find it interesting or you don't.

If you don't, why are you going on about it.

I think the The scheunemann link is interesting as I observe several interesting coincidences in it, those being the reason that it was posted.

I don't state it is either true or false as I have no evidence to support either statement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 06:01 AM

BTW, I'm not going to be able to address the points about the journalist and the oligarchs right away. They require a lot of thought and reading, and I have a storm to prepare for.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 10:31 PM

Sorry, it should be obvious to any thinking person that neither the "Obama as closet Moslem" idea nor the idea of Scheunemann being behind the Aug 2008 attempt by Georgia to bring its restive provinces back into the fold--in order to try to elect John McCain-- have any validity whatsoever.

And anybody who wants to bring up the Scheunemann idea is therefore just as guilty of smearing as anybody who wants to bring up the "Obama as closet Moslem".

"Just discussing it". As I noted earlier, that's just what the "closet Moslem" fools and bums say. Is that fine with you? Yes or no?

Which one you sign up for is determined by who you want to smear.

As I've said before, it's time for people all over the political spectrum to stop spreading stupid conspiracy theories.

I would hope that Mudcatters, as intelligent people--aside, of course from the CEO of Smears R Us, and other similar giant intellects/ jokesters--would be capable of critical thought--critical even of people on your side of the political divide.

I would also hope that such critical thinking--even of your own side-- would not be a foreign concept.

If it is a foreign concept, there's obviously no point to trying to discuss any political issue with you, since you are determined to hold firmly to your double standard, being blinded by partisanship.

The irony of it is I support Obama as strongly as anybody--but I still want evidence before signing on to a conspiracy theory involving the McCain campaign.

And I'm still of course willing to read any actual evidence of the Scheunemann theory--but so far the silence has been deafening.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 11:26 PM

Evidence and documentation, please, instead of just opinion.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 04:53 AM

Ron

You seem to misunderstand what is interesting about the "scheunnnemann Theory" as you call it.

First of all, it isn't a theory.

It is an observation.

What is that observation?

1. McCains foreign policy advisor is Randy Scheunemann.

2. Was a lobbyist for Georgia.

3. He was a member of the group who pushed for the Iraq war.

4. He went with McCain to Georgia in 2006.

Those are accepted facts and not disputed by anyone.

This information has been posted here from 4 different sources.

To an enquiring mind they raise the following quesion:

Is there something dodgy afoot?

That is not a theory either.

It is a question.

You can't prove a question.

In the absence of more information it is not possible to answer that question definitively.

As a question cannot be baseless, it would be nonsensical for carol or anyone else to attempt to describe it as such.

The reasons for asking that question on the other hand are clear and easily observed.

As such it remains valid and useful in the context of this thread, while your criticism that it is a baseless theory have come to a dead end.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 10:04 PM

Fine, Lox. Problem is: those facts are not the crux of the article cited.

Crux of the article is the totally unfounded accusation--in rather slippery, slimy language--that Scheunemann was the agent provocateur behind the attempt by Georgia to bring its restive provinces back into the fold against their wills. And furthermore that this was done specifically to maximize McCain's chances of being elected this fall.

This accusation--with absolutely no evidence relating to the specific August 2008 war between Georgia and its provinces (with Russian backup obviously decisive)--is nothing more than a vicious rumor. And a rumor put out for specifically political purposes--in other words, exactly like the vicious rumor of Obama as closet Moslem.

If somebody can't see this, that person is, as I've said, blinded by partisanship.

If Mudcatters don't believe this, where, for the n'th time, is the evidence of this specific accusation---relating specifically to August 2008?

And the request to me for documentation is, I'm sorry to say, singularly stupid--and indicates the writer has a problem reading--we've already discussed that topic.
The burden of proof, for the n plus 1'th time, is always on the purveyor of groundless conspiracy theories, not on the target. As I said earlier, do you think the burden should be on Obama to prove he is not a closet Moslem? Yes or no?

The principle is exactly the same.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 05 Sep 08 - 10:23 PM

"There are telltale signs" Scheunemann played the same role in "engineering" the August 2008 war as he did the Iraq war.

If that is so, exactly what are these signs--that he specifically engineered the August 2008 war?

I'm sorry to have to tell all possibly logic-impaired Mudcatters that just because he was an advisor to both Georgia and McCain, and strongly anti-Russian it is still a huge leap of logic to say he "engineered" the war.

It is a sloppily written column--and I'm disappointed in fellow Mudcatters that they don't realize it is nothing but innuendo and post hoc propter hoc.

Again, what are the specific signs that Scheunemann specifically engineered the August 2008 war?

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:05 PM

Please show me the post in which I indicated I had evidence that might support what the article I posted had to say about Scheunemann. I don't recall making such a post.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:17 PM

The post I was responding to in my last post has disappeared (probably from lack of a name on it).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 12:54 PM

Now this is interesting. Starting to back off a bit? You've been rather defensive, to say the least, up to now--trying to require that I prove the article's thesis is wrong.

As I've said over and over, a vicious rumor need not be proven false by its target--it's up to the purveyor to prove it has some foundation. And this one is classic post hoc propter hoc----just a politically motivated smear--exactly like the stupid revolting rumor of Obama's being a closet Moslem---as I've been saying for quite a while.

I wonder if your change is because you finally realize there is not one shred of evidence to back up the Scheunemann conspiracy theory---( that he "engineered" the August 2008 war)---which was applauded by other Mudcatters also, you might note. Don't worry, I don't expect you to admit there's been a change in your attitude--but anybody who reads this thread will see it clearly.

Well, if you now realize the article has absolutely no foundation-- contrary to the "telltale signs" remark, there is not an iota of evidence which supports the theory--that's all I'm looking for.

Now we can all go back to the business of electing Obama--without smearing anybody else in the process.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

No, I was up all night with a tropical storm and a tornado and I don't have any patience for assholes right now.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

*tornado watch

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:08 PM

(BTW, the person who's question I was responding to in my 06 Sep 08 - 12:05 PM post is not the asshole.)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 04:15 PM

The unnamed poster was me.

Sorry I didn't attach my name.

If it could be retrieved with my name on it I would be grateful as it took me some time and effort to type and there was nothing irelevant or inflammatory about it.

---

The Post from Lox:

Ron.

The article in the nation makes two key assertions that exceed what I posted before.

1. It asserts that there are telltale signs that he played a similar role in the recent Georgia flare-up.

2. It asserts that in 2005, [Scheunemann & McCain] supported [Sakashvilli's} bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin.

It asks why Sakashvilli would think he could take on Russia unless he felt he had the support of the USA and deduces from that that there is something amiss. This is presented as a tell tale sign.

It is up to the author to inform us what the other tell tale signs (plural) are.

I suppose it can be easily researched whether the second assertion is true or not.

The question is, did the Americans back Sakashvilli's efforts?

And if so why?

Was it to make McCain look good and Obama look bad?

Or was it somehow for oil?

Why the hell did Sakashvilli think he would get away with his actions? What the hell was he thinking?

And if he was mad, why the hell is America taking such a partisan stance against russia?

How do we explain this paradox?

I would like to point out that I have not expressed an opinion, but given a synopsis of the substance of the article as I understand it.

The author is indeed acountable for the "information" he provides.

However,

I maintain that the article is still relevant to this thread as it challenges us to ask the same question and it offers a surprising perspective on a question where other suggestions are notably lacking.

In addition, I still see no grounds to support the claim that any poster to this thread is pursuing a conspiracy theory, much less that they are responsible for providing documentation to support it.

Anybody who does wish to argue a view based on the Article or indeed who wishes to debunk it should provide evidence to support their view.

Ron, that includes you.

______________________________


Carol,


I read an earlier post of yours to mean that you are in possession of evidence that might support a theory based on the Scheunemann question.

If I understand you correctly, you will provide evidence that it is true to counter any evidence provided that is used to support a claim that any such theory is false.

You seem to be saying "I'll show you mine WHEN you show me yours", not "IF you show me yours"

If I have read that correctly, I would be curious to see such evidence as I am sure other mudcatters would who are not involved in this argument but are interested to see how the thread develops.

I would obvoiusly be happy if you would pm it to me, but happier still if you would post it here as it would be of significant usefulness.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 04:24 PM

Carol,

What I meant was, in light of the following quote,

"I'll provide documentation from the US government when the poster demanding this documentation provides documentation from the Russian government in support of their assertions.

I'll provide other documentation later on when I have time."

Could that imply that you have evidence which you refuse to make available on demand or is it just a simple rebuttal.