More on the Russo-Georgian Conflict

Sorry. For unknown techinical reasons, all the urls for the hotlinks in the text have disappeared. No time to hunt them down again. Try Google!
I continue to be amazed to find myself taking the Russian side of a conflict. Having learned how to "duck and cover" in the early days of the Cold War, I never thought I'd side with the successor to the USSR. But the US-backed (if not instigated) Georgian attack on South Ossetia is just another NeoCon folly that brings us closer to the brink of war.

To sharpen my thinking, God has placed close friends in my life who put great faith in the veracity of the Mainstream Media. They really believe that Fox News is "fair and balanced." They fail to realize that Fox vs. "the liberal media" is just an extension of the false alternatives of liberal-conservative and Democrat-Republican that confuse thinking and really mask reality.

My credulous friends help me realize afresh that the American Mainstream Media is every bit as effective as Pravda was in the USSR, maybe more so. In the USSR most people understood that Pravda was putting out the party line and developed appropriate skepticism. In the US many people think that freedom and competition assure that we have courageous reporters risking everything to bring us the truth. Those who believe that don't understand the consolidation of media in multinational corporations and the compromises made by those journalists who grab the golden ring of celebrity status to become media stars.

Back to the Russo-Georgia situation: As usual, many astute observers provide more cogent analysis than I could. Patrick Buchanan exposes the hypocrisy of the Bush administration and the NeoCons. "How would we have reacted if Moscow had brought Western Europe into the Warsaw Pact, established bases in Mexico and Panama, put missile defense radars and rockets in Cuba, and joined with China to build pipelines to transfer Mexican and Venezuelan oil to Pacific ports for shipment to Asia? And cut us out? If there were Russian and Chinese advisers training Latin American armies, the way we are in the former Soviet republics, how would we react? Would we look with bemusement on such Russian behavior?"

Mike Whitney looks in depth at the geopolitics of the situation in "Putin Walks into a Trap." This amazing analysis talks extensively about Obama's chief foreign policy advisor, Zbigniew Brzensinski, and his role in this "Grand Chessboard" strategy. Evidently Putin is in the globalists' gun sites now because he gave a speech in Munich two years ago where "he declared unequivocally that he rejected the basic tenets of the Bush Doctrine and US global hegemony." Read the excerpts from Putin's speech and see what you think.

Whitney also gives us a glimpse of the refocus of the "war on terror" that will come if Obama wins the Presidency. Zbig and his crew will redirect America's war efforts into Eurasia. McCain and the NeoCons seem more likely to keep the focus on the Middle East. Given the Bush administration's actions, it looks more like "both/and" instead of "either/or" to me. An Obama administration will surely disappoint his anti-war supporters, offering "voters a choice of wars, not a choice against war."

Paul Craig Roberts wonders whether American actions will destroy the world. See also this excellent interview with him where he discusses the NeoCons desire to nuke Iran. Follow up with this report from South Ossetia from a retired Lt. Colonel from the US military. And this one gives more insight into how the NeoCon think tanks have been instrumental in backing Russia into a corner. Or this UK reporter or this one on the ground. Gold guru Jim Sinclair discusses some of the financial ramifications of the "Georgia debacle." I'd be remiss if I didn't call your attention to Justin Raimondo's continuing analysis of the situation.

If you saw the Olympics opening ceremonies, you saw President Bush at the stadium. What you probably didn't see were these pictures or these where he looks a little bit . . . well, I'll let you decide what you think. (This is the man who will decide if we start a war with Iran, or Russia, or Pakistan.)

Whether we shortly go to war or not, will we retain our freedoms? Paul Craig Roberts doesn't think so. Nor does Charley Reese. It's up to us, folks.

Starting a war to divert the public's attention from economic problems is an old tactic. That's happened to this blog for the last week. If you need a financial tsunami fix, read "Wag the Dog: How to Conceal Massive Economic Collapse." Perhaps our wise leaders are starting more wars to put the unemployed masses to work with a new military draft. It worked for FDR.