Thanks, I feel tons better now.

The ISS is designed so that the Russian section can disconnect and continue operating on its own. Other sections are designed to be dependent on the Russian section.

I think it needs pointing out that to do anything economic in Afghanistan needs a much calmer Afghanistan, just as it would be anywhere. Poverty surrounds and follows warfare, particularly on the battlegrounds. Prosperity follows peace. The more ambitious the economic project, the more calmness is necessary.

The Taliban getting greedy -- well, the Taliban proved to have no redeeming qualities whatsoever anyway, so it's hardly extraordinary that they stirred in an extra measure of rapaciousness to add to their lame, and official, attempts at blackmailing larger economies. To have done the opposite would have been the extraordinary thing.

I'm on record as being less than impressed about any allegations of propaganda this and propaganda that. I see the entire campaign as one integrated whole -- unstable unfriendlies are not who we want in charge of oil country, preferring that local friendlies who will be most stable (to say nothing of most prosperous) under democracy be the ones running the show. Democracy and economic connectivity are the things in shortest supply in oil country nowadays. Absent the petroleum industries, the entire gross annual output of all of Araby would be about that of... Holland.

Seriously, friendlies on the oil is all the neocons ever really wanted, and the Administration's strategy shows this clearly to anyone not struck purblind by anti-Republican prejudices (which I do not share because evidence is so lacking, and which usually signify to me a mind easily led around by anticapitalist, antiglobalist morons and sharpsters). I am resistant to anti-Republican spin -- our troubles in foreign policy come from non-democracies, and the fewer of those are around, the fewer our troubles shall be. The Democrats have managed no reduction of non-democracies at all; it's all been a Republican effort, which tells me the Republicans have the wisdom of it. I think they should be appreciated for that.

The beginning of the end for Saddam Hussein was to try conquest to cover international debts, rung up because dictators typically run their financial talent, among other kinds, out of their territory. Unless the dictator himself is a major financial talent -- seldom true -- the result is increasing debt followed by material ruin. Viz., Iraq. So Saddam launched two wars, Iran-Iraq and Gulf War I, to control more of the world's oil reserves, clearly in pursuit of oil revenues. He lost both, and with the second one his life also.

Bush unloads a can of whoop ass on Russia

Is Georgia a sovereign state? Methinks so.

We invade sovereign states all the time! How can Condi go in there and say invading a sovereign state is unacceptable when we do it all the time!

I know and understand the world and it's politics are are NOT my strong suit, (I like reading books about poetry) but, I'm asking: how is what Russia is doing any different than what we are doing?
How come NOBODY cares about Darfur??????

You could make an argument that Russia has done less then what we have on some wars. Georgia invaded South Ossetia so they could reach the requirements necessary for admission in NATO and Russia retaliated because the people in South Ossetian, many Russian themselves, feel a much stronger alliance to Russia then Georgia. Russia obviously is in fault too. They justified their attack by saying Georgians were committing genocide on the South Ossetians, which apparently isn't true.

Its just one of the many double standards used by the US and any organization in power.

Russia is doing exactly what they warned of four and six years ago. In fact, I believe the Putin speech that bluntly warned about this was in Munich about 54 weeks ago. Russia has continuously said that American anti-world (we must take *OUR* oil) policies would restart the cold war. Things that Russia considered essential to their security (ie SALT, anti-ballistic missile treaty, nuclear non-proliferation treaty) have been unilaterally terminated or subverted by the US.

Of course, you have heard other rumors and suggestions. For example, Russia may base nuclear bombers in Cuba. It would be a necessary Russian response if George Jr continues with his 'Russia is an enemy' containment policies.

Why did George Jr want to annex Georgia into NATO? Why was he talking same about Ukraine? Bottom line conclusion is unavoidable. Another puzzle part to surround and isolate Russia. You may not have noticed. But the Russians see that quite clearly. Ukraine, the K'stans, Baltic States, anti-missile bases on their border, etc. These are not actions of an America that trusts Russia. These are historic chess moves that preceded invasion. Appreciate why Putin has repeatedly warned about American actions since George Jr and his military empire building extremists have come to power.

Before 11 September, what was the George Jr administration attitude? They still believed that Russia was an enemy. They were rearranging the White House organizational chart to return to a cold war strategy. Why were Richard Clark and the Alex Station moved out or disbanded? Those did not coincide with their extremist attitude of containing the evil Bear. We are getting the cold war we want. Notice how many completely misunderstood Russian objectives in Georgia. Russian security has been threatened by George Jr administration attitudes and actions. Unilaterally discarding international treaties has consequences four and ten years later. How many, using lessons of history, understood those consequences when those treaties were discarded by George Jr? Georgia is an example of what results.

Feh. Ever the apologist for the totalitarians, NEVER the partisan of democracy. Tw, you repeat your self disgrace, never know any better, and essentially exhibit no sympathy for any society blessed with enlightenment. (No tyranny is, you bodacious, maximal political idiot. Comes of your not comprehending humanity.)

I think there is a huge difference. But of course you have to buy that we did not invade for oil or some other conspiracy theory.

Who said no one cares? We learned a lesson in Somalia on that one. Darfur is Africa's problem.

What is your working definition of "conspiracy theory"?

Make up stories.

http://www.therazor.org/?p=855

In this thread it is playing out as "anything challenging my world view." Do you really believe that oil had nothing to do with our invasion of Iraq? I can understand if you believe it is less important than other factors but nothing is just nuts.

I believe it may have been a very small tiny factor in that terror states like Iran have the ability to disrupt the flow of oil out of the region. But that is about it. Now if you would like to show me how much more low cost oil we have gotten from the region since the war, I would be glad to believe that it was a larger factor. Since oil is at an all time high along with gas prices I am betting that theory doesn't hold water or oil.

Ah, this is where we are not communicating. The price for oil is set by the market. We're only trying to maintain a stable supply not set prices. At the beginning of this conflict, I knew folks who really thought cheap oil was going to pay for the war, but they were just war supporters looking for benefits. I don't remember any of the anti-war crowd claiming a beneficial drop in oil prices. I believe prices are high because demand is high and oil resources are limited. Protecting, which I claim is a subsidy, the diminishing supply of easy oil is more politically acceptable to GOP politicians than subsidies for alternative energy. This is probably because Republican politicians have been able to claim other, nobler, reasons for high concentations of American troops in unstable parts of the world.

I still don't buy that was a reason to go into Iraq.