BS: War in Georgia (2008)

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 - 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 06:52 PM

;-P

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 - 06:47 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: 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: 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: 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.

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: 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: CarolC
Date: 06 Sep 08 - 01:01 PM

*tornado watch

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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: CarolC
Date: 04 Sep 08 - 11:26 PM

Evidence and documentation, please, instead of just opinion.

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 - 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: 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 - 12:14 AM

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

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:02 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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.