"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" - Teribus

"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." – Guest lox.

Now what on earth makes Russia think that it can dictate to the world who can go where and do what Lox? Russia having stoked up and engineered this land grab of theirs "requests" an impartial foreign presence in Georgia? Patently ridiculous of course.

Considering the amount of western investment in the country (BTC Pipeline) and its importance to the overall economy of Georgia I would venture the point that the US or EU have got damn sight more reason to be in Georgia than Russia has to being in the former Georgian territories of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

"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." – Guest lox

Well just goes to show how carefully you read things doesn't it? If someone comes out with a particularly one-sided view to discuss "the possibilities" – I will normally respond with a counter view which I think falls in with your "constructive learning process". In putting forward that view I will normally include the reasoning behind what I write, I always ask questions on points known, or reported about any given situation - which accords with your "advancing hypotheses and testing them via constructive scrutiny".

In this particular thread I have stated why I believe that this was a situation engineered by Putin and I have questioned the "theory" that this was all done at the behest of a political party in the US in order to improve the chances of getting their candidate elected. An idea I still find utterly preposterous, as previously stated too many unknowns and too many variables for it ever to have even the remotest chance of success. Russian gains on the other hand are far more tangible, evidence exists of their pre-knowledge of what was going to happen and when – The Russians then made sure that all their pieces were in place, standing by and at full readiness – Very few unknowns, very few variables over which they exerted no control – Beneficial Russian result guaranteed.

"USA is good Russia is bad" vs. "Russia is good USA is bad" – That has been my personal experience over the last 60 years. I have never heard anyone praise Russia for its contributions, or interventions, to the good of mankind within that period. I have on the other hand heard many, many people curse them roundly (Hungarian refugees who came to Scotland in 1956 were the first I believe). Russia's various political "experiments" round the globe have killed millions, and caused untold suffering, in remembrance of those victims of the beneficence of Russia and her rulers it is not my place to forgive and I most certainly will not forget.

As for the, "USA is good Iraq is bad" vs. "Iraq is good USA is bad" argument, I do not believe I have ever argued, or discussed any subject concerning USA/Iraq affairs in those terms. Do I believe that Iraq under Saddam Hussein and the Ba'athist Regime was an evil dangerous place? Most certainly, and that would be an opinion I share with all of the man's neighbours.

I have clearly stated this to others on this forum, I now state it to you, do not put words in my mouth and then attempt to take me to task for them. Do not attribute points of view to me that are not my own and only exist in what your perception of what I have said is.


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

Did you know that Einstein's theory of relativity has not been proved?

That is why it is still called a theory." – Guest lox

Which one of Einstein's Theories are you talking about Guest lox? Special Relativity or General Relativity, both came about through known physics and mathematics in an attempt to fully understand gravity, but you see Guest lox while it is true that a theory does not have to be proved to work, it does have to be based upon something, as does any challenge mounted to prove or disprove the theory.

"According to you, if it ain't proved, its just idle speculation." – Guest lox

Now that Guest lox, is a classic example of you putting words in my mouth. According to me Guest lox, if someone comes up with a possibility in relation to any given situation and provides no substantiation, logic or reasoning for their adopted point of view, or perspective, then it is just idle speculation, and I feel completely at liberty to challenge it.

"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." – Guest lox

Couldn't agree more Newton and Einstein are good examples of exactly that.

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

So far it works, even though it hasn't been proved." – Guest lox

What Works? So far we have had bald statements supported by not one shred of substantiation or evidence. Apart from someone who clings to the one truth that "USA evil and bad irrespective of stance, subject or situation" the so-called theories you refer to have been based upon absolutely nothing – That is what people on this thread are trying to extricate from the proponents of these "Grand Conspiracies".

Now let's see first we have the "Bush/Cheney/Halliburton Mafia" who do what exactly Guest lox? This next bit I know might get people on this forum frothing at the mouth:

Element 1 – Bush – George Walker Bush – Elected President of the United States of America in November 2000 (Ask Al Gore, he conceded the election) and again in November 2004 (Much to the chagrin of many who post here). Now that makes him in point of fact the Head of State and Commander-In-Chief of the United States of America. He does not take decisions completely off his own bat, he is supplied with information and advised by many experts both within his own administration and in many government departments and agencies. His first term of office was marked by the worst attack on America by foreign nationals in the history of the USA. Those particular terrorist attacks he responded to robustly and effectively, which is more than can be said about his predecessor in office, GWB also called for evaluations to be made to assess and identify the greatest threat facing his country. Here too he responded robustly and effectively in the removal of such threats from rogue states such as Iraq (threat identified in 1997/8); Iran (Nuclear weapons programme halted, probably only temporarily, in 2003 according to last NIE Report); North Korea and Libya. Entirely due the actions taken by the USA the most dangerous illegal covert nuclear proliferation programme in the world was uncovered and stopped in its tracks. Contrary to popular left-wing beliefs the USA under George W. Bush did not act unilaterally, they went to UN who then completely failed in its handling of what the USA felt were justified concerns – Please note, Guest lox, this is the complete opposite of what Putin and the Russians did in Georgia.

Element 2 – Cheney – Richard Bruce Cheney – Elected Vice-President of the United States of America in November 2000 and again in November 2004. He has a long history of public service and was an extremely successful businessman. Prior to becoming George Walker Bush's running mate in 2000 he relinquished his ties with the company he had run (Halliburton) and signed over any future benefits from that company to charity.

Element 3 – Halliburton Mafia – Who or what is this? As you appear to believe that they exist Guest lox maybe you could provide something by way of substantiation. I know the company, in fact I know it rather well, so I'd be interested in reading why you term them, and regard them, as being a "Mafia".

Then we have what you term as the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" who you appear to fear so much. How come Guest lox? What threat does this "axis of evil" pose? Let's have a look at it:

Element 1 – Cheney – The self same Richard Bruce Cheney who was elected in 2000 and in 2004. Please correct me if I am wrong here Guest lox, but I was under the distinct impression that Dick Cheney was not running for any political office in November 2008. That being so, can you tell me how, being a private citizen, he will be in a position to influence anything within the ranks of any McCain Administration? Also correct me if I am wrong here, but weren't they political opponents in both 2000 and in 2004? What has happened to put him at the head of this evil alliance as you perceive it? I take it that you do have some sort of reason for stating all this, that there is some sort of rationale that has some basis in fact and can be substantiated in some way? Or is it only a vague possibility, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 2 – Scheunemann - Randall J Scheunemann, McCain foreign affairs advisor and registered lobbyist. Randy Scheunemann will be what exactly in the McCain Administration Guest lox? You obviously know something as it was you and you alone that came up with this "evil alliance" that will "possibly" dominate the next US Administration, i.e. the, "Cheney/Scheunemann/McCain Mafia" despite the fact that as of now all that is known about it is as follows:

-        Come January 2009 Richard Bruce Cheney will be the ex-Vice-President of the United States of America and a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 Randall J Scheunemann will be a private citizen;
-        Come January 2009 John McCain MAY BE President of the United States of America.

So then Guest lox give us the scoop, what is it that you know but we all don't, or is this just another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Element 3 – McCain Mafia – Is there one?? How has it manifested itself? You obviously appear to think that it exists, care to share any reasoning as to how and why? Or is this yet another of your vague possibilities, based upon nothing bar subjective and biased opinion?

Much as it may surprise and astound him, I am completely with Ron Davies on this subject. You cannot just trot out anything that takes your fancy, or grips your fevered imagination, then refuse to provide substantiation or reasoning for your point of view and attack anybody who doesn't agree with you.

As to your predictions for the way things may possibly develop post election, which I find are extremely limited in outlook at best, nostalgic even. Russia failed as a "Super-Power" in the 1980's, it is not a status Russia will ever regain, there are simply not enough of them and their economy is nowhere near developed enough. Russia must turn into a trading nation to reap any benefit of her abundant natural resources and she is not going to attract many trading partners by aggressive behaviour.

The UN has been an ineffectual joke for more years than I care to remember and urgently requires radical reform and complete transparency which it continues to fight tooth and nail.

The Super-Powers of the 21st Century Guest lox – USA; China & India.