When Russian troops arrive on scene to defend their peace keepers, killing of civilians & troops STOPS in a few days, humanitarian disaster averted.

When US troops arrive un provoked, killing of civilians & troops STARTS, unabated for 5+ years of quagmire occupation, with humanitarian disaster accomplished.

Odd how aid got to Georgia faster than New Orleans, eh? And what about the Iraqis who suffer daily?, where is their on demand airlifted food or meds? and now the DC mafia wants to further REWARD Georgias aggression with 1 BILLION our our tax dollars, while pretending the S. Ossetia victims don't exist.

A. My post has nothing to do with Afghanistan. Our actions in Afghanistan were justified, and I have supported them vocally since day one.

B. The coalition aspect in Iraq impresses no one. Gulf one had a real coalition. In this case, the most powerful country bullied other nations into making contributions that were for the most part, neglibgle. (England an obvious exception) Are you that taken by the participation of Iceland's non-existant military?

c. What do you mean by blaming Chaney for keeping prices low? Prices have pretty much gone in one direction under Bush/Chaney/ Up.

D.

It seems you would rather play the blame game than discuss the idea of oil as a modern weapon and how we counter it.

We can thank everyone from Rachel Carson to Al Gore.

This one speaks for itself...

Oil cannot be kept off the world market. The commodity is fungible, what we don't buy others will. Adding to the world supply and minimizing supply disruptions is the benefit.

What percentage of global oil could we realistically produce from increased drilling?

Another benefit is revenue from our own oil and worldwide price reductions.

Yes, there would be an increase in collected taxes due to the sale of domestic oil on the world market, with the added benefit of shifting the trade deficit a little. How much of an increase in tax revenue can we realistically expect from increased drilling?

My good friend, the coalition of forces in both Iraq and Afghanistan would not appreciate being ignored. The UN resolutions that preceded our invasion must also count for some world opinion of Saddam's Iraq and the need for regime change.

Blaming Cheney or for that manner anyone for the lack of progress in alternative energy is wrong. The failures are a result of the difficulty of making alternatives cost efficient. Before we blame Cheney for keeping oil prices low for so many years don't forget many have already blamed him for making them high. You can't have it both ways.

It seems you would rather play the blame game than discuss the idea of oil as a modern weapon and how we counter it.

Michael,

Oil cannot be kept off the world market. The commodity is fungible, what we don't buy others will. Adding to the world supply and minimizing supply disruptions is the benefit. Another benefit is revenue from our own oil and worldwide price reductions.

Am I the only one who thinks this is sort of a comic book view of events? And not a particularly sophisticated comic book...

The sooner we accept energy and more specifically oil as a weapon to be wielded then the sooner we will work to counter by expanding our own energy supplies.

Unless you mean non-oil energy supplies, or you intend to keep domestic oil off the world markets, I don't see what expansion will do for us.

In the game of foreign relations we have given advantage to those who oppose us. This is a poor strategy. We can thank everyone from Rachel Carson to Al Gore.

We can also thank Dick Cheney and his friends at Standard Oil, GM, Ford and Exxon who have fought so successfully against alternative energy, higher mileage standards and mass transit...

That seems to be the lesson escaping everyone here. Energy is a weapon in the new war. Why risk troops and spend money on weapons systems when withholding oil or even the threat of withholding oil can do so much.

It's not just the Russians who figured that out either. Our enemies work the oil weapon whenever possible. It's not used to destroy us or take our territory but to raid our treasuries. Why take ground by force in a war when you can extract treasure and buy the property?

The sooner we accept energy and more specifically oil as a weapon to be wielded then the sooner we will work to counter by expanding our own energy supplies. In the game of foreign relations we have given advantage to those who oppose us. This is a poor strategy. We can thank everyone from Rachel Carson to Al Gore.

But Obama has uttered the words for them to leave. Why oh why have the magic ponies not obeyed Obama's commands to sweep the Russian tanks from the stage.

Let's see. This is taking place on Bush's watch. McCain has actively inserted himself into the situation. But anything that goes wrong is Obama's fault.

Maybe we can blame Clinton too. And LBJ for that matter...

Other ideas?

5. The Russia army is still trying to figure out who the real President is.

Examples:

1. The government has agreed but word hasn't reached the troops in the field.

2. The government has agreed but the troops in the field don't care.

3. The government is just pretending to agree.

4. “Oh, you meant that Georgia”.

Other ideas?