Cameron did not explain how the protection of an oil pipeline in Georgia was related to U.S. energy independence.

Although, I don't exactly see how this is directly related to US energy independence in the long run, this is very important.  Russia does not currently have in its possession a warm sea port.  By taking Georgia, and the pipeline, Russia will in turn control more energy - and be able to hold captive the Europeans as consumers even more.  

Its common knowledge that energy builds power and wealth, and thats exactly why Russia is going after it.  They've had this planned for a long, long time.  For all we know, it could have been ex KGB related people causing some of the issues in the S. Ossettia area in order to provoke this military crusade.

 Russia does not currently have in its possession a warm sea port.

Sure about that?

They have land to build one, but not one with the sustainability and current usage as the one in Georgia near the pipeline.

I admit it, after further research you are correct. Russia's warm water ports are only done via leasing other nations' ports. They currently have nothing sustainable on the black sea.

If knowing media were the only expertise here, and knowing squat about geopolitical chessboard moves, a visitor's comments could yet be expected to discount unto utter disbelief, every mass media mark.  When TV says Georgia is the victim, then Georgia is the aggressor culprit.  The opposite is the truth because mass media says it isn't.  And knowing a smidgeon of veritable geopolitics even more corroborates the truth as opposite of mass media propaganda.  Just as the Soviet citizens explained they undertstood their mass media during the USSR decades -- when it is in media it is known false because it is in mass media.  For instance.

Anyway, perhaps Russia has a warm water port here, along the Baltic Sea coast near the legendary Gdansk shipyards.

Or, in another regard, considering the catastrophic rate of melting at the polar icecap, soon enough (quicker than oil pipelines can get there), the entire northern coastline of Russia might be navigable warm water.

Next, whether presented in mass media or in person, any McCain statement is known to be an automatic lie because it is McCain's statement.  His representation is bully bogus of US reliance on the BP oil pipeline through Georgia from the Caspian Basin.  The spigot coming out at Ceyhan is shut off for now, but when it's open, none of the oil flows to the US.  That oil came online in 2006, pumping avg. 500,000 barrels per day, max 1.2M b/d.  The most bulk of that oil goes by ship 400 km to Israel, and comprises 20 percent of Israel's consumption.  An extension of the pipe is already under construction, for completion in 2010, running underwater along the Mediterranean coastline to Ashkelon in Israel, from Ceyhan in Turkey.  At Ashkelon, the new pipeline connects to an existing oil artery across the illegally occupied Gaza to the Red Sea port of Eilat.  Then -- not for Israeli consumption -- the oil (3500 km from its Caspian source), fills tankers heading across the Indian Ocean for sale to China, Japan, and other Asian customers of Israel.  None of the BP pipeline oil is bound for the US.   Disregard propaganda liar McCain.

Here are maps of Georgia's ethnic districts and the BP-operated BTC pipeline that runs through it.  Also shown is the Caspian Consortium Pipeline, which runs a different (Ukrainian-Russian) route from Caspian wells (at Atyrau, Kazakhstan), to Novorossiysk on the Black Sea, where tankerfuls can take the oil around the world. 

Reading Georgia's political history finds that the Russian enclaves in South Ossetia and Abkhazia never have been encultured parts of Georgia, same as Texas is a a lone star sensibility (if you can call it that) apart from America.  (Or, as The New Yorker cover depicted Manhattan, self-set apart, alone, from everything 'across the Hudson' westward to the Pacific.)  Recent armed clashes began as Georgia invaded South Ossetia with an onslaught of explosions in its capital, Tskhinvall, (such havoc as is the hallmark of US-driven Israeli-agent prepared incendiaries -- indeed, Israeli soldiers and US-raised mercenaries are among the captured Georgia insurgents taken prisoner).  Russia then retaliated, as surely as would America if Mexico entered Texas coincident with bomb blasts in Austin.  The strategic battle logistics in Georgia are told here and, fully updated, here.

It seems someone(s) expected Russia not to react, or not as much, to Georgia's provocation.  And Russia might have not at another time, before or after now.  Currently Bush-McCain militarism faces down a crisis dilemma hoisted up their (its) own petard -- painful to sit atop a spear point and more painful to dislodge from it and fall fifty stories down to Earth.  The current US military and mercenary ('demollition forces') crisis is the uncontained volatility in Pakistan and Afghanistan.  American taxpayers are subsidizing efforts in Big Oil plans to operate and profit through a pipeline out of the Caspian Basin to ocean tankers.  There are only two routes out -- south through Afghanistan and Pakistan to the Indian Ocean, or west through Georgia to a Black Sea terminus, or extended on through Turkey to a Mediterranean Sea terminus.  Uprisings and revolt against US occupations in Afghani-Pakistan might frustrate the pipeline embezzlement there, yet as long as Georgia soldiered on in 'frozen conflict;' the Caspian oil ran its course in BP's BTC pipeline and all was quiet on the western front.  Now Georgia stepped over the line and into a bear trap, and got its vein severed.  Leaving Big Oil bereft of both ways out under guard, amd sustaining sentry, of US overtaxed expeditionaries.  Russia's move, of deployed force that simultaneously threatens the square where Georgia sits and contends for the square where Afghani-Pakistan sits as proxies which compromised US influence must get out of, is analogous to a chess move called a 'knight fork.'

Mind you, if or when US-based Big Oil ever gets a straw into the Caspian to suck out tankers full, (self service), those contrabands is not coming to America as fixes for petroleum addiction.  No.  American taxpayers fund the pipeline and its palpable protection, but Big Oil gets the goo to sell and profit anyway it wants, (same as US taxpayer-financed Israel pipes in oil to broker, not combust), empowered in the laws enacted by its purchased politicians like McCain

Just listen to the media, they'll tell you that's not so.  Thus, we explain the news to ourselves.

 

RUSSIA HAS INVADED GEORGIA!..... ALL OUT WAR IS POSSIBLE!..... HEAVY CIVILIAN CASUALTIES!......OIL

Oh well, who cares.

 

• - Science101 / Saturday August 9, 2008 8:14:01 AM EDT

Did Science 101 flip-flop?????  :-)

USA invades sovereign nation for oil = good

Russia invades sovereign nation for oil = bad

Got it.

USA has not received or taken any oil, nor profit from Iraq.  Oops, so much for that theory.

Not the US, just McCain aides, blackwater, Halliburton and other american interests who are tied to the current administration.

Yeah thats it.  So we went to war for profit...just as Al Gore started this global warming nonsense for profit and socialism.  Got it.

You deny that those companies are profiting?

It's called capitalism at work.

So we invade and occupy a country, divvy up its oil fields to several multi-national companies, and you call that capitalism?

So we invade and occupy a country, divvy up its oil fields to several multi-national companies, and you call that capitalism?

Some dunderheads on the right call our illegal war in Iraq "God's Work", because they've been able to kill some Muslims in the process.....

Speaking of "god's work", did you happen to catch this article about Dobbs and Focus on the Family praying for God to rain on the DNC convention? Them right wing phony christians are a real piece of work...

I live near St. Paul and our extended forecast for when the RNC is in town is calling for toads and blood.

Subsidized Capitalism - hundreds of billionsf of dollars from those of us paying taxes in the U.S., and the young Republicans sit and cheer on Halliburton as mommy makes them a sandwich.

Suckers.

Capitalism at work, huh?  Wow.  Capitalism is amassing quite a body count...

What a slimeball you've turned out to be, The Wuss. Not a redeeming quality ever displayed.

You deny Gore is?

Can't answer the question? Gore has nothing comparable going on that was funded by no bid contracts. If he's got anything (regardless if you believe in global warming or not) it is all privately funded by non gov't entities right now. So stop deflecting and answer...

You're purposely confusing motivation and outcome.

Al Gore started this global warming nonsense for profit and socialism.

Al Gore started Global Warming?  That's an even larger exageration than (your bogus  talking point that) he invented the internet.

Al Gore started Global Warming? 

Yep.  The day after he invented the Internet.

(Sarcasm Off)

try reading what was said without playing "disleftic"... started this [global warming] nonsense.....

see, erudite, elitist liberals, go back to the thrid grade and review how to diagram a sentence, separating the adjective from the noun as the object of a sentence... duh!

 

"USA has not received or taken any oil, nor profit from Iraq."

 

Oh Really?  Yet we have SEAL teams protecting Iraqi oil terminals round the clock and naval carrier groups patrolling the Persian Gulf to keep the oil shipping lanes open, all courtesy of the American taxpayer.

Why are we paying and doing so much to protect someone else’s oil that never enters the U.S. Market?

 

OH!!  THAT'S WHY!!!!

Wow, just like I said! US no profit. US companies profit. It am right thing to do! Ugh!

USA has not received or taken any oil, nor profit from Iraq.  Oops, so much for that theory. - Science101

I used to think that you just didn't understand things and that was why you so often posted wildly inaccurate claims.  It is clear, however, that you are just lying and wasting our time.  Why are you here?

Are you sure Russia invaded Georgia for oil?

I was reading an article by former Russian President Gorbachev in Washington Post and he seemed to have other ideas about Georgia's motives.

For energy control, not just oil.  The warm sea port and control of the pipeline are huge.  Not to mention the old Soviet style "comeback" they want to institute.

So the recent conflict has nothing to do with

"The roots of this tragedy lie in the decision of Georgia's separatist leaders in 1991 to abolish South Ossetian autonomy. This turned out to be a time bomb for Georgia's territorial integrity. Each time successive Georgian leaders tried to impose their will by force -- both in South Ossetia and in Abkhazia, where the issues of autonomy are similar -- it only made the situation worse?" ?

as stated by a former Russian President, and more to do with oil/energy? 

And why is it that we only see President Bush's (and McSame's) support of Georgia in this regard and no one else?

Thanks. 

For energy control, not just oil. 

Scienceguy, you just got finished "debunking" the idea (on this very thread) that the US invaded Iraq for oil, by asserting (with no support, as usual) that the U.S. has not profited from any oil there (yet).

Now, suddenly, you understand the strategic advantage of occupying and controlling the oil rich areas?

You're starting to defeat yourself on a pretty regular basis here, and that's selfish. Give other posters a chance to have some fun making a fool of you you.

Cameron's presumably inadvertent remark shows how the US regards any "democratic" (ie pro-US) energy-strategic regime as our "home turf." We want to own Georgia (the former SSR), just like we really, really wish we could own Venezuela, or at least boss it around a whole lot. And isn't Hugo Chavez a terrible dictator and strongman for wanting to be independent of the US?

Not that there's anything wrong with coldly pursuing US interests. But the lack of honesty gets old.

Imperiaistic agression, by any name you might want to put on it.

Will they be vicious enough to suceed? Baring some questionable actions in Africa whose sucess isn't assured. Will they buck the trend of quick armed sucess, a bleeding insurection, and eventual ignominous retreat?

Pipelines make for wonderful targets. All you have to do is break one part of it. Someplace in roughed terrain, even more effective.

Another gem found on newshounds: seems that McCain affirms knowing the Georgian president for 25 years... when in 1983 Georgia was a sovietic republic and he was... 16 ! Another "senior moment" ?

Shhhh!!!!  Don't you know that we're supposed to ignore it when McCain blathers idiotically?

That doesn't even make sense.  Oil independence means not relying on anyone else for oil.  The pipeline moves oil from Caspian Sea wells.

How is using oil from the Caspian "oil independence"? !!!!

That's exactly what I was thinking.  Seems like yet another blunder from the McCain campaign.

"The Grey Path" points out an interesting case of irony in Fox Prolefeed's remarks thus:

That doesn't even make sense.  Oil independence means not relying on anyone else for oil.  The pipeline moves oil from Caspian Sea wells.

How is using oil from the Caspian "oil independence"? !!!!

I, for one, see it as sheer stupidity on Fox Prolefeed's part.

And speaking of "oil independence," what about the possibilities of Jerusalem artichokes and switchgrass as potent sources of ethanol (especially so the former) ... or even crude jatropha-seed oil as a viable biodiesel?

Bio reactors growing algie is another interesting idea, for biofuel production.