> 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.
>
>
>
> mbs2: Naughty naughty. I said if I COULD, not if I did repeatedly.
>
> Your response makes me despair of dialog.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> mbs2: Yup!
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> mbs2: Not all borders of a very large country are created equal,
>
> as far as national security goes. I haven't justified anybody
>
> invading anybody. All I've implied is that recruiting ex-Soviet
>
> countries into NATO is a provocation without purpose.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> 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?
>
>
> mbs2: It serves no purpose and in many places is prohibitively costly
>
> by any rational criteria.
>
>
>
>