Re: And your point?
"But there's no "think" about it. Georgia DOES own South Ossetia according to the current border."Not according to Russia."And the US would be foolish not to protect its interest there. For example, if you had your own money tied up in an investment in the pipeline, you'd certainly like to see it not disrupted or stolen."I suppose you're right . . . were I Exxon or Mobil or Shell or BP (etc), I'd be upset with anybody fooling with my supply, since I'd definitely want to continue with the record profits of these past few years.The US should send its military for this? How about sending a bill to the investors who profit from that pipeline, should we actually need to move troops in? Let them pay for it.I should think that if you looked up "unstable region" in the encyclopedia, there ought to be a series of photographs, certainly one of which would be of Georgia. Anyone investing in pipelines in such historically "textbook" examples of instability ought to know the score. They knew going in what was always likely to happen, but that's what investing is all about . . . they felt it was worth the risk. Now that it maybe isn't worth the risk, American taxpayers have to bail them out, not just with money but with lives?Well--maybe it won't go that far. "What's foolish, in my opinion though, is how Georgia chose to deal with the separatists. Surely maintaining status quo would have been better than was the current outcome. I think?"There I think we can agree. It was foolish to rile Putin. And in the end, what was gained? Putin used the same argument to invade Georgia that was used by Hitler to invade . . . lots of places. "There are ethnic ________s living there, so we go to protect them, not to advance our own interests." Georgia gave them an excuse on a silver platter. Probably one bought by US funds -- funds that we borrowed from the Chinese.Sigh. Uneasy lies the head.
Herring405
H
Herring405
(view)
"But there's no "think" about it. Georgia DOES own South Ossetia according to the current border."Not according to Russia."And the US would be foolish not to protect its interest there. For example, if you had your own money tied up in an investment in the pipeline, you'd certainly like to see it not disrupted or stolen."I suppose you're right . . . were I Exxon or Mobil or Shell or BP (etc), I'd be upset with anybody fooling with my supply, since I'd definitely want to continue with the record profits of these past few years.The US should send its military for this? How about sending a bill to the investors who profit from that pipeline, should we actually need to move troops in? Let them pay for it.I should think that if you looked up "unstable region" in the encyclopedia, there ought to be a series of photographs, certainly one of which would be of Georgia. Anyone investing in pipelines in such historically "textbook" examples of instability ought to know the score. They knew going in what was always likely to happen, but that's what investing is all about . . . they felt it was worth the risk. Now that it maybe isn't worth the risk, American taxpayers have to bail them out, not just with money but with lives?Well--maybe it won't go that far. "What's foolish, in my opinion though, is how Georgia chose to deal with the separatists. Surely maintaining status quo would have been better than was the current outcome. I think?"There I think we can agree. It was foolish to rile Putin. And in the end, what was gained? Putin used the same argument to invade Georgia that was used by Hitler to invade . . . lots of places. "There are ethnic ________s living there, so we go to protect them, not to advance our own interests." Georgia gave them an excuse on a silver platter. Probably one bought by US funds -- funds that we borrowed from the Chinese.Sigh. Uneasy lies the head.
Herring405
