BS: War in Georgia (2008)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 05:39 PM

Ron

"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."

Do you mean me or Carol?

If you mean me, you'll find that I participated to explain carols point and then went on to show that you are wrong to assert that anyone on this thread is arguing any kind of conspiracy theory, let alone have to defend it.

If you mean Carol, I think you'll probably be disappointed if you think she's backed down one iota.

In the meantime, I would like to ask you for your opinion on the same troubling question.

Where do you think Sakashvili got his confidence to attack an area patrolled by the Russian army?

If the USA thought he was misguided, why did they not speak out against what he did?

Why in fact have they backed him up to the hilt?

That is the paradox brought to light by the article, and it goes on to attempt to find some kind of explanation that stands the test of scrutiny better than the official noises coming out of washington.

The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN.

And scheunemann is MaCains foreign policy advisor - presumably expecting a job as secretary for foreign affairs - and he's been to Georgia with McCain before this crisis began to support Sakashvillis "stand against putin".

This proves nothing about any theories, but it does leave you wondering - "who is this guy, if that's his record then what is his game in Georgia, and what kind of foreign policy is he going to be selling for America.

A prosecutor wouldn't have enough to prove anything in court, but no specific charge has been levelled so that is not required.

A policeman on the other hand, would have enough indication of suspicious circumstances to persuade his boss that they needed investigating.

Especially now that we see Cheney going to Azerbaijan to reassure them that their oil pipeline (the same one that runs through Georgia) won't be affected cuz the USA is shoulder to soldier ... yawn ...

Why is America so partisan in Georgias favour?

It seems to me that there is a big fat rat stinking the place out because the smell is unbearable.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:43 PM

I figured that's who the unnamed poster was.

I'm going to have to go back and look at the context for that quote from me, so I can get a better sense of what I was thinking about when I wrote it.

I haven't had any sleep since yesterday morning, so I might not have enough focus to do it today.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:47 PM

I spent all the day before yesterday and part of yesterday hauling lumber and bales of straw from my outdoor piles and putting it under cover, and getting things secured and ready for the storm. With that and no sleep last night, I can't remember much of anything I've said in this thread lately.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:51 PM

Excuses excuses ... ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 06:52 PM

;-P

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

"Why is America so partisan in Georgias favour?"


You mean like we were partisan in WW I and WW II towards Great Britain?

Maybe because ( in the opinion of the US) Georgia is in the right, and Russia in the wrong?

(see statements by Present US government, McCain, and Obama)

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 09:25 PM

Ok, this from me...

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


...is not about Scheunemann. It's about the US and Israel arming the Georgians and training them. I didn't provide the documentation in question after I made that post because I realized after I made it that I had already provided it, so I just sent the questioner looking through the thread for it. It wasn't the same person as the one who is still flogging the dead, rotting, oil spot in the middle of the road that used to be a horse, on the subject of Scheunemann here in this part of the thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:21 AM

"The article writer decides to look for some kind of skullduggery in the US/Georgian Alliance.

And he finds Scheunemann.

A key advocator for an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields, torture of Iraqi soldiers and civilians and a trumped up load of nonsense about nuclear weapons as an excuse to do it all, and all in a manner that completely undermined the authority of the most important peace and stability serving body we have: the UN." - Guest lox.

Priceless, absolutely priceless.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Goose Gander
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 02:39 AM

The US has as much business in Georgia as Russia would have in Mexico . . . let's bring the troops home and leave the slavs and the europeans and the muslims alone . . . seriously!!!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:16 AM

MM,

Let us rather say "The US has as much business in Georgia as Russia would have in Cuba."


So, we should send in troops and "liberate" those poor Cubans, destroying their military?

That appears to be what you are justifying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:37 AM

The US has business to be wherever it is invited and wherever its help is sought. As far as I am aware the Russians have never been invited into anywhere.

To those who uphold and find reasonable the actions of Russia with respect to Georgia and the two areas of the state of Georgia known as South Ossetia and Abkhazia. Take a look at a map of the area and take a look at the rather dangerous precedent Putin has created.

The Russian view is that it is perfectly legal to issue citizens of another country with passports, provoke unrest then dash in to the aid of "your citizens" and then annex not only the territory that they claim plus whatever other chunks of land that take your fancy.

So all Georgia has to do is print up Georgian passports by the truck load and distribute them in Chechnya and Ingushetia - The Russians of course being great believers in freedom and self determination will immediately vacate those provinces.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:15 AM

BB,

Of course, when Georgia rocketed Tshkinvali and killed all those civilians and put russian peacekeeping troops with a mandate to be there under threat, and russia took on Americas role as local international policeman, that was comparable to Garmany conquering most of western europe without provocation and murdering millions of jews.

Of all people on this site I am most surprised to see you draw that comparison.

"Maybe because ( in the opinion of the US) Georgia is in the right, and Russia in the wrong?"

Is that why America got involved in WWII? was it that arbitrary? And there I was thinking it had something to do with Germany's 100% unprovoked conquest of Europe.

Teribus,

1. "The US has business to be wherever it is invited and wherever its help is sought. As far as I am aware the Russians have never been invited into anywhere."

Russia has had legitimate mandated peacekeepers in the region for more than ten years.

They were there when Georgia attacked tshkinvali.

The US has no such legitimate mandate.

2. "priceless"

Thank you for your weak attempt to belittle me, maybe you'll say something intelligent next time ... I won't hold my breath ...

____________

To those who think:

a) that I support the russian action,

or

b) that I am an advocate of a conspiracy theory

please cut and paste from any of my posts evidence of how I support the russians on the one hand or evidence of what theory "I" have advanced on the other.

_____________

In the meantime, expect me to scrutinize every point I read.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: beardedbruce
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 11:29 AM

Lox,

From ALL that I have been able to find, contrary to CarolC's conclusion I have found enough out to determine (IMHO) that the attacks by the dissidents in South Ossetia were the cause of the Georgian attack- they had been and were attacking Georgians, while Russia encouraged them( and as "peacekeepers took no action) and deployed military forces far beyond the "peacekeepers" ( which included Georgians, as well) in positions to attack Georgia. Georgia was wrong in it's attack ( they should have gone to the UN and waited a while while nothing was done and THEN attacked): but they had a valid reason to attack.

The US DID train some Georgian troops- and probably supplied some US material. This was the Georgian unit that was supposed to protect the oil pipeline from terrorist attack ( such as the South Ossetians, when they use violent action to change political status). Since this pipeline concerns other countries ( or at least the contents that were going through it) it might be considered appropriate that other countries help to protect it.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 12:01 PM

BB

The whole thing has been mishandled from start to finish, and I am sticking to my view that it is about two big slimy superpower showoffs (Russia and America) shoving their oar into a local blood feud for the purpose of their own self aggrandizement.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 12:11 PM

To add to my last post,

when I first started posting to this thread, I was afraid what might be happening in the world and how it might affect me.

Now it feels like old news, and I feel like I was a bit of a sucker for letting it bother me in the way it did.

Now it bothers me in an entirely different way.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 07 Sep 08 - 08:45 PM

Priceless - Attempts to belittle yourself???

Example: "an unjust war in Iraq that included theft of oil fields"

Guest lox please give me one single example - Otherwise retract the statement and shut the fuck up.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:59 AM

I didn't have an opinion about the piece about Scheunemann before, but I do now.

There's certainly no hard evidence that the attack by Georgia on South Ossetia was intended (at least in part) to help McCain in the election. But there's plenty of circumstantial evidence. Not enough to convict someone in court, but certainly enough to raise questions and to merit pursuing lines of inquiry.

My own opinion is that the US probably did encourage Georgia to do what it did, and that, if they did, they probably had several objectives that they were hoping to get out of it. The Bush people seem to always try to kill many birds with one stone as possible. I think the idea that the US encouraged Saakashvili to attack South Ossetia is entirely within the realm of possibility, and that if that is the case, it is also within the realm of possibility that helping John McCain's campaign would have been one desired byproduct of that action. But I definitely don't think they would have done something like that without several compelling objectives.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:27 AM

"The Theft of Iraqi Oilfields By the USA"

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/2699789/China-marches-past-USA-to-stake-a-claim-to-Iraqs-oil.html

Damn clever that, isn't it Guest lox??

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 05:12 AM

Stop Press!!!!!!

China in "signing a contract with the Iraqi government" Shocker!!!!

Today it was revealed that Chinese oil companies have set up business deals in Iraq.

Scandalous!

After America and her pals spent all that money killing and torturing Iraqis!

America has earned the right to that oil!

They sent their young, poor and unemployed to die for it!

"those darned Chinese didn't torture or maim one single Iraqi - what have they done to deserve this" a fictional source is quoted as saying.

From your mudcat correspondent charlie clevercloggs.


Meanwhile in other news, documents
turned over by the Commerce department, dated 2001, concerning the activities of the Cheney Energy Taskforce, show a definite pre-war interest in Iraqi oilfields as well as a definite interest in what international oil companies were involed at that time.

We can see on closer examination that China was negotiating deals then too! (horror)

Thanks joe for clearing up the mess.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 07:39 AM

Guest lox,

Please give me one single example of the supposed theft of Iraqi oil fields by the USA.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: GUEST,lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 09:50 AM

I posted a link to a thread entitled "23 billion are you serious?" or something like that which led to a Panorama investigation about US corruption and $23 billion dollars of regeneration money that went AWOL after the war.

At the end of this investigation there was a pretty clear map drawn showing how the oilfields in Northern Iraq had been divided up in the favour of Cheneys pals.

Sadly the links are old now and don't seem to be working, but if you care enough to argue you may feel free to look for a working link or contact the BBC to get a DVD of the program so you can draw your own conclusions.

Meanwhile, the link above shows clearly that the Oilfields of Iraq featured prominently in Cheneys energy policy.

Hence the trumped up WMD excuse.

So Chinese business has moved faster than the American behemoth ...

well that's no surprise to me ... I grew up in Hong Kong so I m fully aware of the chinese instinct for a business opportunity.

How arrogant the 5 main oil companies wre for thiking they could bargain so hard with Iraq and ignore the competition.

Red faces all round I'd say.

Serves 'em right!

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:10 AM

Still no example of an Iraqi oil field stolen by the USA, just a lot of meaningless chatter.

So anyone, or any organisation, who has maps of a country's natural resources is guilty of "plotting" to steal them - Ludicrous.

The plain hard truth of course is that no Iraqi oilfield has been stolen by anyone - Now all you have to do, is be honest enough with yourself and admit that your plain statement that the US had stolen Iraqi oil fields was false, libellous and a complete fabrication based upon absolutely nothing.

In your link containing what you rather fancifully deem to be "evidence" is a list of foreign companies interested in Iraqi oil field development - take a look at the dates of the agreements most are in the mid to late 1990's - Oh and NONE of them are American - wonder why.

So you can now tell us who among Cheney's friends quartered up Iraq's oilfields, and how and when they did this.

And no Guest lox I am not going to waste my time chasing about looking for something I know does not exist.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM

The Bush administration tried like hell to steal, not the fields, but the rights to a large percentage of Iraq's oil. They were trying to coerce the Iraqi parliament into agreeing to this by using it as one of the "benchmarks" for withdrawal of US forces.

Looks like they failed. I see that as good news.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:26 PM

Wrap yourself firmly in this simple thought with regard to Iraq's oilfields CarolC:

It only looks as though the US failed to steal Iraq's oilfields purely and simply because they never tried to do it in the first place.

As I have stated many times on this forum - you cannot "steal" an oilfield, once again the anti-war, anti-Bush chatterers have levelled the accusation and totally failed to prove it - begs the question when are they going to desist from regurgitating this fiction.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM

No, they didn't try to "steal" any oil fields. What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil. And this is what they have so far failed to do.

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

BTW, what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 01:33 PM post is the same thing as what I said in my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post, which anyone who had actually read my 08 Sep 08 - 11:21 AM post would know.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"What they did try to do is coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing over the rights to most of Iraq's oil." - CarolC

Utter rubbish, the rights to ALL of Iraq's oil remain where they have always been, the natural resources of Iraq belong to the Iraqi people, and that situation will be maintained.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:46 PM

"And no Guest lox I am not going to waste my time chasing about looking for something I know does not exist."

I've supplied you with a reference teribus.

It is (as I stated) a panarama investigation described in brief here.

Just as I do not have to attach a book or witness to an essay, I do not have to provide you with the actual video. A reference will do.

I've already explained how it is relevant.

If you wish to check the credibility of the source that's up to you.

As for the list, how do I put this so you'll grasp it - the information supplied to the Cheney energy group or whatever they're called is (concentrate) about their competitors.

Hence no American companies.

see?

no?

never mind.

I've also seen other BBC rticles talking about other negotiations between China and Iraq in 2006.

In the meantime, remember how there were all those fantasy weapons in Iraq?

Well as a result there were sanctions.

Forgotten?

Yeah - so no foreign trade - to cripple Iraq.

That's why Iraq needs the help of foreign oil companies now.

China beat the USA to it and I am glad.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 01:52 PM

Yes, the rights remain with the Iraqi people, as I said before. That's why I said that the US government failed in its attempts to coerce the Iraqi parliament into signing them over. Failure means lack of success.

But it wasn't for lack of trying.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:31 PM

China reviving oil deals with Iraq in 2006

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:45 PM

Meanwhile, let me repeat that these
documents show that Iraq's oil fields were at the centre of cheneys energy policy for the USA in 2001

And on the subject of oil theft, have a look at this.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 02:58 PM

Here's something useful too that puts the documents posted into perspective.

And here is a useful paragraph from that link.

"These documents are significant because during the 1990s, U.S. policy- makers were alarmed about oil deals potentially worth billions of dollars being signed between the Iraqi government and foreign competitors of the United States including France's Total and Russia's LukOil."

You see?

the list of foreign competitors?

no?

never mind.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 03:53 PM

Guest lox go and find out how the international oil & gas industry works, most of what you refer to then will make sense.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:05 PM

Don't know if this website has been featured here before or not but I found the link interesting.

www.halliburtonwatch.org

Meanwhile we have here the recent story of Cheney consolidating his oil interests in Azerbaijan.

Cheneys pals in halliburton made a corrupt fortune in Iraq from the war and I have no doubt that he hoped for similar assurances on his stake in Iraqi oil to the ones he is getting from the azerbaijanis.


Anyway, getting back to point, Scheunemann was tied up in the whole thing too.

Nothing is certain, but there are more than enough grounds to feel disgusted at the amount of sleaze and cronyism going on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 04:19 PM

Thank you teribus, It makes perfect sense to me already.

Halliburton (cheneys old company that he ditched for government) are corrupt to the core as are their subsidiaries.

Cheney wanted that oil.

He didn't count on China whipping it out from under his nose.

The look on his face must have been ... er ... "priceless".

"understanding the oil and gas industry", even with your deep and talented insight, won't help me accept the corruption, the human rights abuses, the lies or the trumped up WMD accusations.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 09:51 PM

"circumstantial evidence" indicating that Scheunemann played the same role in August 2008 as in the Iraq war--i.e. he was one of the neoconservatives who "engineered" the attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

OK, so let's be specific. What exactly is this "circumstantial evidence"? We've been at this since 21 Aug--and exactly zero evidence has been revealed. There is no evidence in the article in question, which reads amazingly like a hatchet job on McCain. We're coming to the "fish or cut bait" portion of the program. The audience has been primed and the tension is building. We've sat through all the annoying ads. Surely there will be some actual evidence and facts to back up what otherwise so far bears an amazing resemblance to a politically motivated smear--that McCain's close advisor "engineered" a war to maximize his candidate's chances in the fall election. Just like the politically motivated smear, on the other side, that Obama is a closet Moslem.

"Tune in next week" will not do as an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 08 Sep 08 - 10:38 PM

The circumstantial evidence is in the article I posted. Read it.

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

For those who can't read, however:

Scheunemann used to be a lobbyist for Georgia and Saakashvili was his boss. Scheunemann now works for McCain. Scheunemann worked for McCain in the 2000 election as well, after which he headed the Committee for the Liberation of Iraq. He was also the director of the Project for a New American Century during the run-up to the war in Iraq. These are the people (along with the other neo-cons), who are responsible for our going to war against Iraq.

"In 2005, while registered as a paid lobbyist for Georgia, Scheunemann worked with McCain to draft a congressional resolution pushing for Georgia's membership in NATO. A year later, while still on the Georgian payroll, Scheunemann accompanied McCain on a trip to that country, where they met with Saakashvili and supported his bellicose views toward Russia's Vladimir Putin."

Scheunemann is found standing in the observatory over the body of Professor Plum, and he's got the smoking gun in his hand. We can't prove he pulled the trigger, but we can suspect that he did.

This isn't to say that helping get McCain elected would have been his only reason for wanting Georgia to attack and invade South Ossetia. There's plenty of other possible reasons. He is a neo-con, after all, and what they are about is world domination (by their own admission). But as I said, they tend to kill as many birds as they possibly can with one stone. And getting McCain elected helps Scheunemann accomplish his other, larger, neo-con goals of increasing US hegemony around the world.

I have not seen any good explanations why Georgia would take on a country like Russia that is vastly more powerful, militarily than it, other than that one.

None of that is hard evidence, but it's definitely circumstantial evidence. It proves nothing, but as I said, it's perfectly reasonable to question under the circumstances.

That Obama comparison, by the way, is bogus. There has been plenty of proof that Obama is not a Muslim. I have seen nothing that proves that Scheunemann was not instrumental in some way in helping to instigate Georgia's actions toward South Ossetia, and plenty of things that point the finger in his direction. If someone should provide proof that he had nothing to do with it, I will reexamine whether or not I still consider it a possibility.

Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:20 AM

CarolC's post of 08 Sep 08 - 11:08 PM, the sting comes in the tail:

"Remember, I said "within the realm of possibility". I did not say I considered it to be fact. There's a big difference, and until someone proves that it didn't happen this way, it remains within the realm of possibility, no matter how much huffing and puffing anyone wants to do here in this thread."

Anything can dwell "within the realm of possibility" CarolC and as such it is pointless to discuss them unless you are working towards migrating them to "probability", in which case hard evidence has to be considered as opposed to subjective opinion from biased sources.

Is it possible that a former lobbyist based in the USA engineered a conflict between a tiny state against its extremely powerful neighbour, that the tiny state would know it had no hope of winning just to help a candidate win the US Presidential Election in November 2008? Yes I suppose it is possible.

Is the same thing probable - I would say that it would be highly unlikely, there are far too many unknowns and variables for such a plan to ever have even the remotest chance of success.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 01:38 AM

It's not pointless to discuss if I find it interesting. The the point in discussing it is that I find it interesting. And maybe others might find it interesting, too. That's all the point it needs as far as I'm concerned.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Teribus
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM

Ah well if it is only the possibilities that are being discussed, enjoy discussing them to your hearts content, you may even finally work round to discussing what other possibilities might equally apply to the subject.

But pleased to see that the Russians have stated that they are going to station on a more-or-less permanent basis detatchments of 4,800 troops in both Abkhazia and in South Ossetia. That will at least in the short term provide some form of economy for the inhabitants as I doubt, for the South Ossetians, that there will be much trade now passing through the Roki Tunnel from Russia to Tbilisi. As the Russians can see no possible objection to this in order to ensure the security of the borders of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded.

We can all then muster round and fervently campaign for the "Right of Return" for the 193,000 odd Georgians who were ethnically cleansed from Abkhazia, then who knows? They might possibly hold another referendum in which all the people who belong to the province get a vote.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:18 PM

We shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:19 PM

My last was in response to points made at 09 Sep 08 - 10:49 AM.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 02:20 PM

I see the guest post has been removed.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 03:18 PM

"they can surely have no possible objection to say US or NATO forces being stationed in Georgia to ensure that the sovereign territory of that state is safeguarded"

They have actually been requesting this very publicly for a while now. They haven't specified NATO troops, but they have been requesting an impartial foreign presence.

You will find evidence on past news reports on BBC, Channel 4, SKY, ITV, CCTV (English speaking - chinese state tv), Al Jazeera (english) and Russia Today.

Regardless of what people write, you seem fixated on a "USA is good Russia is bad" vs "Russia is good USA is bad" form of argument.

Just as you appear to want a "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument.

You seem incapable of understanding that argument can be a constructive learning process and that there are ways of arguing that don't include being adversarial, but which do involve advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny.

You also seem not to understand that a theory does not have to be proved to work.

Did you know that Einsteins theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory.

According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation.

Yet without it Neil Armstrong would have set foot on empty space.

A theory that works stands until it is disproved.

And what generally happens with most scientific theory is not that it is scrapped, but that it evolves.

The "scheunemann theory", so titled by its critics, is actually part of a wider thoery concerning the actions and intentions of the perceived Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia.

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved.

I trust it enough to agree with its implication that if the perceived Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia remain in control after the next election we will see increased polarization between east and west and we will see more blatant energy foothold consolidation, not to mention a weaker and weaker UN as Russia and the USA decide more and more to act unilaterally where their overseas interests are threatened.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Ron Davies
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:19 PM

Your "evidence" (8 Sept 10:38 PM) contains precisely nothing that connects Scheunemann specifically to the August 2008 attempt by Georgia to drag its restive provinces back into the fold.

Perhaps you're unaware that life is not quite as neat as a game of Clue. I'm afraid I have to say I'd hate to try to employ you as a PI. With you representing me I'd be sued all the time for wrongful arrest.

"But, your honor, it was within the realm of possibility."




Curiouser and curiouser. First we have the indignant protest that anybody who criticizes the article is committing an ad hominem attack. Then the poster says I must prove the thesis of the article--which is nothing but an obvious smear with no evidence--is false. After trying to gently to guide her to the obvious truth that it is not the target of a smear but its proponent who must come up with evidence, and after weeks of no supporting evidence being revealed, despite repeated requests for it, the poster tells us she never took a stand on the validity of the thesis. (Then why, one wonders, the refusal to admit there is no evidence?) Then we're told of "circumstantial evidence", though none is forthcoming. Now the level of proof has sunk even further--now it's "within the realm of possibility" What's next--"I thought it was true."?

Sorry, "within the realm of possibility" is the retreat of somebody who, after weeks, can't come up with one iota of actual evidence--just like the allegation that Obama is a closet Moslem. The fools and scumbags--including some Mudcatters-- who like to spread that smear-- point out that his father was a Moslem and that he went to school in Indonesia, at one point a Moslem school. Your evidence to convict Mr. Scheunemann of "engineering" a war to benefit his candidate is no stronger than the Obama-closet Moslem evidence. That is to say, each one is a politically motivated smear. The only other explanation in the Scheunmann case is that the columnist was facing a deadline--hence not overly concerned about evidence--of which there is none.

The mystery then becomes: why the Mudcat hosannas for a crackpot theory? And why the need to try to defend an obviously lost cause? If you were bound and determined to lash yourself to the mast, why didn't you try to find a vessel more likely to be seaworthy?   Do you like being shipwrecked?

And as I've said, more than once, I believe: the burden in a theory with no evidence is on the proponent of said theory, not on the target to refute it.

Is the burden on Obama to prove he is not a closet Moslem?   Yes or no?



Another bit of friendly advice. Using foul language--in fact losing your temper at all--is the surest way to lose a debate. Sharks can scent blood in the water rather easily. It's possible that Teribus has learned this.

But perhaps that's your normal way of speaking. If so, carry on.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 10:34 PM

Please learn the difference between hard evidence and circumstantial evidence, and also the difference between an opinion and an argument.

As I have said repeatedly, since the one saying that the article I posted is not true is the only one who is making any kind of argument, that person is the only one who has to provide any proof. Since I only voiced an opinion about what is possible rather than an argument about what is necessarily true, I do not have to provide any proof whatever.

Since I have seen no proof, or even any evidence or any facts to support the argument that the article I posted is not true, I think we can safely say that the person who is demanding proof from me for an argument that I am not making is engaging in gross hypocrisy, is not willing to put up or shut up or to hold themself to the same standards they are holding others, and does not deserve to be taken the least bit seriously.

When this person behaves in the same manner they are nagging others to behave in, that's when I will consider taking that person seriously. I don't expect that to ever happen.

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: CarolC
Date: 09 Sep 08 - 11:03 PM

BTW, on the subject of Khodorkovsky, it's my opinion that he and the other Russian oligarchs (crooks) belong in prison. I'll have to do some more reading before I can comment on that journalist, and that will have to wait until after Saturday (JtS' 50th birthday party).

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:30 AM

I write to clarify on a point of information, not to express my opinion.


Circumstantial evidence.

Basically suspicious circumstances.

Like those described in this thread for example.

Not proof, but a theory doesn't need to be proved to work.

And it can remain a useful model to help us understand what's going on until it is either proved or disproved.


Though I reiterate, no specific theory has been argued here.


What has been said is that circumstances are suspicious in the extreme.




"4 results for: circumstantial evidence Browse Nearby Entries
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This
circumstantial evidence
–noun proof of facts offered as evidence from which other facts are to be inferred (contrasted with direct evidence).

Also called indirect evidence.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Origin: 1730–40]
Dictionary.com Unabridged (v 1.1)
Based on the Random House Unabridged Dictionary, © Random House, Inc. 2006.
Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
circumstantial evidence

To learn more about circumstantial evidence visit Britannica.com

© 2008 Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc.
American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence   
n.   Evidence not bearing directly on the fact in dispute but on various attendant circumstances from which the judge or jury might infer the occurrence of the fact in dispute.


(Download Now or Buy the Book) The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2006 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.
WordNet - Cite This Source - Share This circumstantial evidence

noun
evidence providing only a basis for inference about the fact in dispute [ant: direct evidence]

WordNet® 3.0, © 2006 by Princeton University.
Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law - Cite This Source - Share This
Main Entry: circumstantial evidence
see EVIDENCE"

Subject: RE: BS: War in Georgia
From: Lox
Date: 10 Sep 08 - 05:40 AM

BTW, friendly advice is of course warmly welcomed.

I would ask though that you refer to patronizing and insulting use of the word "priceless" in this thread that was then defended with (since deleted) foul language when it was challenged.

If there was blood in the water it was because the alleged victim bit off more than he could chew.