I don't get the Buddhist spirit running through your words.
"Although your world wonders me with your majestic superior cackling hen Your people I do not understand So to you I wish to put an end And you'll never hear surf music again . . . "
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: boddi satva
> Sent: 08/25/08 04:55 pm
> To: lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org
> Subject: Re: [lbo-talk] Russian forces withdraw from Georgia proper,
> pipeline mysteriously untouched and out of Russian control
>
> On Mon, Aug 25, 2008 at 1:18 PM, <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> >
> >> 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.
> >>
>
> I see, so you admit that your robbing a 7-11 would make it
> un-economic. Your contention is that merely having the ability to rob
> a 7-11 anytime you wanted without anyone being able to do anything
> about it would *not* make it uneconomic.
>
> Okay, um,....I really don't even know what to say, actually.
>
>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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!
> >>
>
> Lunacy.
>
> So your thesis is that Russia is a country with the largest natural
> gas reserves in the world, domestic petro-resource sales accounts for
> 6% of GDP at least, they control the flow of much of the petro
> resources from Central Asia, and the government is busily taking as
> much control as it can of the domestic petro indstry but oil is not a
> consideration in their strategic decision-making.
>
> And why do you believe that America invaded Iraq because oil was there
> - or do you even believe that?
>
> >>
> >>
> >> 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,
> >>
>
> You said it, some are greased with black gold.
>
> >> 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?
> >>
>
> Well, I agree that it was purposeless provocation, but we are talking
> here about the Bush Administration which is nothing if not purposeless
> and provocative. You see, they even provoked me into using the Bushian
> construction "Is Russians".
>
> But that does not mean that Russia needs some special curtain of
> occupation around it. In fact....more later
>
> >> 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.
>
> I see.
>
> So the US-Mexico fence, which is clearly a political ploy and just as
> clearly considered well-worth the expenditure by the
> illegal-immigrant-importing Republicans "serves no purpose".
>
> And the Russian invasion of Georgia which really could not serve an
> economic purpose more obviously is all about politics.
>
> People can tell you absolutely anything, can't they.
>
> I forgot to ask, but I assume your "guy in the Gov. who knows about
> this stuff" belongs to the "Gov." which idiotically failed to see this
> coming.
>
> That "Gov."?
>
> If he "knows about this stuff" and he's talking to you now, then why
> the fuck wasn't he talking to the New York Times a month ago - or two
> - or three?
>
> I don't think anybody in this Gov. knows about a goddam thing - bunch
> of fucking Toonces-looking idiots is what they are.
>
> Morons.
>
> And here's an idea for the Russians, in case anybody knows anybody in
> that Gov.:
>
> Posit: You figure out your strongest military opponent is overextended
> and thereby losing the ability to defend its expanding periphery.
>
> Do you:
>
> A) Let or even encourage your opponent to expand more so their
> periphery becomes completely indefensible.
>
> or
>
> B) Invade a bit of their periphery and thus remind them that their
> periphery is indefensible so they change their strategy.
>
> Here's a hint, Kremlin: the answer is "A" - you dumb fucks.
>
> UNLESS that is, Kremlin, you find that you don't really care if NATO
> changes their strategy so long as you can secure control over copious
> amounts of a strategic resource, in which case the answer is "B" and
> you are very smart.
>
> But Doss, Sawicky and a guy in the Gov. say. that could never be.
>
>
> > ___________________________________
> > http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
> >
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>