What's interesting to me is to try and figure out when the actual news will change the received wisdom around here and what new insights that might engender.
In the mean time.......
On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 6:11 AM, <sawicky at verizon.net> wrote:
> This has become tedious and uninteresting, and you ought to consider
> getting a new handle.
>
> 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
>>
> ___________________________________
> http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk
>