Originally Posted by roachboy

i don't think it was Intentional, in the sense of "ooo, that'd be fun. let's do that."
rather in the context of a multiplicity of levels of jockeying for influence--with the goal being geopolitical advantage shaped by oil on the one hand and the inability of the neocons to think beyond a coldwar worldview on the other---a situation was generated. that situation acquired its own momentum. the conflict in georgia/south ossetia is an unintended consequence of it.

it's hard to imagine georgia acting as if the americans were really going to help them. the timing of their move was about as bad as it could be for the bush people (think poland)...but at the same time, i expect that the therapeutic narrative offered by cheney goes something like: if you hadn't been turned down for nato memberhsip by the evil france and germany, this would have played out differently.

and to say the obvious, nothing in the above should lead you to think that therefore putin is pure as the driven snow---quite the contrary, he has his own political issues and his own motivations for playing into this scenario---the conflict in georgia has stregthened his political position in russia significantly, at least in the short run---and the narrative about georgia and the us is serve=serving.

but that doesn't mean that therefore it is false. not entirely.

stop trying to put things into simplistic terms--the question is not whether you or i "like" russia or "like" the bush people--its more what the hell is going on here, trying to work it out. if you make your consumer preferences a priority, all you'll find is your consumer preferences mirrored back to you. and you'll do it to yourself. thinking is better than consuming, a different type of consumption maybe, less locked into the a priori maybe.