[lbo-talk] Russian forces withdraw from Georgia proper, pipeline mysteriously untouched and out of Russian control

boddi satva lbo.boddi at gmail.com
Mon Aug 25 12:54:15 PDT 2008


On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:35 AM, Chris Doss <lookoverhere1 at yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> I'm going to leave my apartment in a little bit. My pretext is that I'm hungry and want to go to McDonald's, but the real reason is that there is a gasline in the area I want to sabotage so as to gain leverage over my neighbors. Don't believe otherwise!
>

But Chris, how can I be sure you're not going to McDonalds to buy thousands of Big Macs for the people of South Ossetia? What's that you say? Not in your interest to do so? An over-commitment of resources? You have to think of your own interests first?

I don't think the Kremlin would like that kind of talk.

I wrote:

On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 11:05 AM, <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
>
>> mbs: I could knock over a 7-11. That doesn't make it 'non-economic.'

Robbing a 7-11 doesn't make the 7-11 uneconomic? Really. Have you discussed that with the people over at the Southland corporation? Because I'd hve thought they'd be keen to show you a couple spreadsheets which might support another view.


>>
>> If I made a habit of doing it successfully, that's a different story.

Well, you'd have to start with once, wouldn't you.


>> The Russians have not shut down the pipeline.

Sure, that's true, assuming we ignore the fact that the Russian action absolutely did shut down the pipeline (the week it was to re-open after a previous bombing).

In response to my writing:


>> What pipeline talk, exactly would that be? The Kremlin has said a lot
>> of things about that pipeline that were clearly rubbish, but they
>> contradict other things people have said about the same pipeline. So
>> is everything anyone says about the BTC pipeline rubbish? Is oil no
>> longer a strategic asset in your world? Is it your contention that oil
>> had nothing at all to do with this conflict? Because it's odd, the

Max Sawicky wrote:


>> mbs: that is my contention, notwithstanding the general
>> world-historical importance of oil. It's really about the U.S./NATO encroaching on the
>> frontiers.

I see. So your argument is that notwithstanding the fact that oil is a strategic resource, the Russians felt a strong need to invade and occupy parts of a neighboring country (again, outside of South Ossetia and Abkhazia, which they also occupy) for strategic reasons.

It's simply a coincidence that oil flows through there.

As for this "encroaching the frontier" nonsense, tell me, what very large country is on the Eastern borders of Estonia and Latvia, the Southern border of Lithuania and the Northern border of Poland and the Northeastern tip of Norway? What Atlantic Treaty Organization do those countries all belong to? Is Turkey a bit too "frontierish" for Russia? Would you feel the Russians would be justified in invading Finland if it joined NATO?

Is Russians a special kind of country which needs a buffer of occupied territory around it? Some kind of curtain, perhaps?

What's your position on the construction of the fence between the U.S. and Mexico?


>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list