"I didn't express what I believed in any of my posts:"

Right...you offer no contrary opinion, yet are happy to discredit mine with snide blanket statements that "conspiracy's are fun" and that "blogs must be true". I'd say that's far more disrespectful than anything I've posted on this subject.

Obama has sided with McCain and Bush on this issue. Who's lip servicing who here?

I didn't offer my view of what happened because I'll admit that I don't know. Yes, I will poke fun at your quoting of several uncredentialed bloggers quoting unnamed sources as proof of fact and intent. Quoting something you found on roguegovernment.com, or lataan.blogspot.com is certainly not the same as fact. Could they be correct? Absolutely! Could they be making things up for nationalistic, religious, sensationalistic or other reasons? Absolutely.

Fair Enough.

As long as you are willing to see that either could be correct (a choice you have to make yourself based on your perceptions and hopefully, research) than I am fine with that. My overall point in this, is that there is far more going on than what is being given to us, Mainstream media or otherwise. It is much more accurate to form an opinion based on a number of sources combined (including blogs) than to simply parrot what various news outlets feed us, which I see A LOT of.

If I came across as arrogant in any way, I apologize. It's a fault of mine that I do try to contain, but not always successfully. I regard Chris's writings to be very astute and respectful and is a model I wish to conform to. :)

However, I do get a bit irritated when someone disregards an opinion as that of a "conspiracy theorist" as if to suggest some sort of crazy, wacko scheme that was made up, devoid of fact like I have nothing better to do than sit in the dark in my basement and concoct elaborate theories (cuz let's face it...that's the implication).

Most of my opinions are hard rooted in fact and can be supported so, as evident of my pointing out of American and Israel supporting Georgia with training and funding which is obviously a contributing factor in all of this (something you avoided to mention when you decided to use the "c" word). I lean on blogs from time to time to contribute to the context of such stories rather than accepting at face value a mainstream news outlet's story.

I hope you understand my point.

Anyway, I think I am done here. I don't want this to be a flame war. And my apologies to have inadvertently contributed to that. :)

I am certainly willing to admit you may be correct. I just get really frustrated someone offers a differing opinion only to be told they aren't doing enough research if they believe what they believe.

Most of your opinions are hardrooted in fact as you interpret them, as they are reported to you on the news sources you believe. As are mine. As are GWBs. Just as mainstream media may be wrong, so may blogs. And since it takes nothing to become a blogger, any two-bit hack can put up a reputable website and state 'these are the facts'.

I don't believe everything the mainstream media says and frequently research things on my own. But I don't have a knee-jerk response to disbelieve what the mainstream media tells me either.

Understood.

And at some point, common sense takes over and you are able to decipher what the closest thing to truth is.

So to sum up...we know that Washington and Tel Aviv have been pushing for war with Iran, we know that Washington and Tel Aviv have been supporting Georgia, we know that Georgia could act as a perfectly good buffer zone to Iran, we know that Russia has a vested interest in Iran and opposes a military conflict there and will likely aid Iran in that event AND we know that there are two more strike groups headed for the Gulf.

It is not unreasonable to conclude that the Georgian assault on S Ossetia could very well be a conflict to keep Russia occupied and to prevent substantial supplies from getting through to aid Iran in the event it is attacked.

From Washington's point of view, this would be a favorable strategy IF the goal is a strike on Iran, which we all know is something they want.

And there are many reputable bloggers that have also followed this logic. The facts support the conclusion at least. The facts can also support another conclusion...but I have yet to hear of one that makes as much sense.

Anyway, that's all I've been trying to say. When you really dig and look back at the overall picture, it's not hard to see.

...as long as you're wearing blinders and don't bother to delve into Russia's motives or history, its makes perfect sense.

lol...Listen, Ed...if you are going to attack an argument, throwing half assed blanket statements into the air without contributing to your supposition whatsoever is NO way to go about doing it.

I've laid out exactly what I think is going on (you are free to disagree) regarding the bigger picture here by taking into account related news and combining them to form a somewhat logical conclusion. What have you done? The equivalent of pointing and laughing, that's what.

You are welcome to your opinion Ed. And thank you for supplying it. But unless you have some reason to believe that somewhere within Russia's motives or history (as you yourself are stating) caused Georgia to attack S. Ossetia, then your comment was nothing more than yet another snide remark used to demean and discredit what is clearly a thoughtful, although perhaps wrong, argument.

You've brought nothing to the table other than baseless accusations that are no better than these recent irksome metagaming accusations.

You are free to not agree...but FFS, make an educated response!

k, I scrolled up to find your argument...I had forgotten you contributed to this earlier. My apologies.

I would agree that this is also a plausible argument. I can't determine just how true this is in contrast to what I've provided since you didn't provide any evidence to support it.

But that still does not excuse your dismissal of my argument.

OK

Why has Russia been so vehemently against Georgia starting the process of joining NATO and the EU?

Isn't there a conflict of interest when Russia is supporting seperatists in a region where they are being used as a "peacekeeping force"?

Is it out of the realm of possibility that Russia wants to keep Georgia in a state of unrest so they can keep control without outside influence? (see first two questions)

Why is Russia continuing to fight after they declared a cease fire?

Do you not take Russia's history with Hungary, Poland, Rumania, Bulgaria, Latvia, Lithuania, Estonia, Ukrane, Armenia, Moldova & Azerbaijan into consideration?

Why is your only rebuttal to a question about your way of thinking to hurl insults.

Do you not realize that your taking only one side of an arguement and basing it on hearsay is itself an uneducated response?

The thing is I don't have all the answers, and neither do you. But as a self-styled intellectual, that doesn't stop you from blathering your nonsense. That's my point.

Well, I always like to look at world events with a geopolitical lens, and from what I see it's fairly East vs. West here. I would have to say that Russia is the winner in this conflict and is not actually being distracted from supporting Iran.

I must agree with Ed that Russia's arms dealings with secessionist rebels was done with purpose. Russia responded very quickly to Georgia's attack, they knew it was coming sooner or later. They definitely overreacted considering South Ossetia is a rebel state, and not part of sovereign Russia. But it was a purposeful overreaction, you don't accidentally charge into another country, grab their crucial geopolitical points, call a ceasefire, and squat.

Putin's appeal to free the Ossetians is indeed similar to the Bush administration's free the Iraqi's, and it's clearly motivated by factors other than the freedom of Ossetians, as they've cut Georgia in two. I have to say that the Russian orchestration of the Georgia attack was done quite a bit better than the American attack on Iraq.

Georgia is very important from a geopolitical standpoint, as it has important ports on the Black Sea, two very important pipelines, and it brings Russia closer to Iran, which may be important in the future. As well, if pro-American Georgia's NATO bid went through, than Russia's defense of Iran would be made much more difficult, and with Ukraine a promised invitation, the Black Sea would be nearly completely surrounded by NATO nations.

Darwyn, criticism is a crucial part of discerning truth from falsities. In the spirit of debate and discussion many people will play the Devil's advocate simply to further the rigour and search for truth. That they do not necessarily offer their own arguments does not mean that they do not offer anything. Rebuttals are justified, and even if a unsatisfactory response is offered, you should not be so quick to react.

In the end, nobody has any evidence. All we offer are interpretations of the events.

If in the same breath you can say that neither of us have the answers but mine is nonsense, then you have failed to make your point.

I can accept other plausible arguments...in fact I think that you present a good one and I can accept that my argument is in no way comprehensive.

But what I cannot accept is your belittling of an argument that I've presented while you stand there and accuse me of being one-sided. Isn't calling my argument nonsense and "wearing blinders" precisely what being one-sided is? That's rich.

Bottom line: I could be wrong. You could be wrong. There's no sense in dismissing each other's arguments without attacking them specifically point-by-point.

I agree Chris, that criticism is a crucial part of discerning truth...however criticism should be constructive. Slapping labels such as "conspiracy", "wearing blinders", "nonsense" is in no way constructive nor get us any closer to discerning truth from fiction.

I'm all for Devil's advocate when it contributes to the debate. I've yet to see it hear though. Have you?

Chrispminis: I agree whole heartedly with your comment about playing Devils advocate. I do it all the time, because I want to find out more, and it is often a good way to get people to flesh out their arguments or come to new conclusions.