Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (38185)	8/10/2008 3:03:33 AM
From: TobagoJack	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 218025

to paraphrase you, if i understood correctly, that The real reason for the conflict? The oil fields of mesopotamia which will undercut crude supplies to everybody who disagrees. Not to mention that USA wants to send a strong signal also to Saudi Arabia and the closer relationship of the Iran with russia. If the East will not forceful interfere and defend Iraq position I am afraid that we will quickly return to the days of the cold wars and extortion in all economic spheres by USA. Now is another real test of the (lack of) backbones of the EU. Interesting to see what Merkel and Sarkozy can prove their mantle and are worthy as leaders "Georgian armor have been roaming Ossetia's land since Friday. They raided several villages and bombed them. etc etc

To: Haim R. Branisteanu who wrote (38185)	8/10/2008 3:27:26 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 218025

Some more taught on the Georgia/Russian conflict, which to many seems odd in all respects as the chances of Georgia winning are slim at best – so there is much more than meets the eye and Russia MUST fail IMHO or it will be very very costly to the Western World - as Georgia is not Kosovo from an estrategic point of view Quote Georgia and Russia have been in a state of cold war for years now - so what drove the Georgian government of Mikhail Saakashailli to set a match to the tinder-box against such an overwhelmingly dominant opponent? Zhianov maintains Georgia was merely defending its territorial integrity, but leaves unexplained the simple fact that Georgia started the fight this time around. The answer, many Georgian observers say, lies in the American election cycle. The Bush White House has been a close friend to Georgia, a country that is host to one of the world's most important oil pipelines and which lies close to the border corridor to both Afghanistan and Iran. With the possibility that the Bush administration will be replaced by one with a less aggressive foreign policy, Georgia might believe that its ability to resist Russia's ambitions of regional dominance will be severely weakened when Bush leaves office. Iran, too, is watching closely and asking itself whether the American military, a dominant force in the region, is backed by the political stomach for confrontation. The question in this conflict is not whether either Georgia or Russia is correct - Georgia's arguments against dissolution along ethnic lines are identical to those made by Russia regarding Kosovo and Chechnya - rather, the question is whether or not the West is still a relevant presence in the Caucasus and, by extension, all of central Asia. Some watching the events unfold believe that granting Russia control over its near abroad - including tiny Georgia - is a fitting price to pay for Russian cooperation on the more urgent question, Iran. But if the world's strategy for containing the Islamic Republic's nuclear ambitions is to effect a psychological and political change in Teheran, the perception of Western and American weakness in coming to Georgia's defense achieves the opposite.