Can anyone recommend a good website for following the action here? Analysis as to what it means for the rest of the world is a plus.

I fear this could get big, but then I also fear wet cats...

-Blast

http://www.drudgereport.com/ Here's where I check the news because there's so many resources.

Not to fan the flames, but this has been one of the more common models since Perestroika fomenting into WW3. Having one or more of the breakaway blocs draw NATO into a conflict with Russia is a precipitous condition.

blackfive.net is an opinion based milblog. They hit a lot of areas, but have been fairly steady on the Georgia issue. A current post has a dozen links to other sites that can give more info.

I hate shameless propaganda there. Check Reuters about that:
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSLB9471020080811

The opposite side coverage could be found here:
http://en.rian.ru/onlinenews/

But for the serious unbiased scientific view of the events on the subject I'd watch for this article live development:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_in_South_Ossetia_(2008)

IMHO before you get too deep in the supposed action, motivations, politics and blame laying it is usually helpful to get some basic background. A simple map, a rundown of Georgia's relative size, location in relation to other nations, population, demographics and resources:

https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/gg.html

Believe it or not the CIA database on such things is pretty much both neutral and informative. A good start. Notice that Georgia is "slightly smaller than South Carolina" and average income is $4,700 (2007 est.). That ought to put things in perspective.

Once you have a framework a quick read of a couple of papers dealing with the politics and implications for the US might round out the background nicely.

One from a political perspective:
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33453.pdf

And one from a security perspective:
http://ftp.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL30679.pdf

Neither are too difficult or long. There is some overlap but each adds something.

Once you have digested the background information the news makes a lot more sense. Understanding the background also prevents you falling for many of the more extreme claims and predictions.

Beware of Drudge. He made his name breaking a couple of important stories and maintaining a fairly tight journalistic standard. But once established his standards got left behind and he became the go-to guy for rumors. Many of which have been, are, floated for political reasons.

The Drudge Report is pretty close to tabloid level journalism. He doesn't question sources harshly or do much fact checking. His output is often less about actual news than rumors of news and news about rumors. When he gets caught reporting one way and it turns out the other you can expect that the story will just be quietly dropped. There aren't many corrections, apologies or attempts at self-correction. Like the National Enquirer the focus is on the extreme and outrageous because this draws people in and maintains the hit count. He caters to voyeurism and morbid curiosity, the tendency of people to stare at car wrecks.

Just for the record, I don't believe everything I read. The Drudge Report has links for most of the major news outlets including the international ones. It also has links for earthquake maps and info. I also don't just go to CNN or FOX for news. It's all pretty much tabloid journalism. If it bleeds , it leads. I never go by one source alone and if it is labled shock or something like that I don't read it at all. The Drudge Report is a good place to start research from. You really don't have to read all the articles. I just think having most of the news links in one place is easier. I agree about the way they handle things if they report a story wrong, they do just drop it. If I could find a website that lists all the links that Drudge does, I'd probably check there too.

The BBC is a good place to look http://news.bbc.co.uk/

They lean to the left (PHRASECENSOREDPOSTERSHOULDKNOWBETTER. views) but they do give the facts .

They have reporters everyplace on the planet and seem to cover every story out there. If something is going on, you can bet a BBC reporter is there or on the way to it.

And right now have a story on the Russian troops in Georgia. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/7554507.stm


I just looked, and counted. They have 5’links to different aspects on this story.

They said today on a radio talk show that Russia has over 14,000 nukes, The USA has in the area of 5,000.

Yea they are probably not up to our standards, but anyone with 14,000 of them is probably going to be able to get a few up & flying.

Don’t make the mistake of thinking the bear has no teeth.

If you knew they were going to push a button to set one off in the silo in 15-min, how far and fast would you run if you were in the neighborhood?





If you said anything more then just stand there and watch, so much for Janes!