>>It seems the U.S. position is fixed:
>>
>>http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/georgia/2535881/Georgia-Gori-evacuated-as-fears-of-Russian-advance-into-Georgia-grow.html
>
>The U.S. position is ALWAYS fixed to its own interests (as the all other countries).
>If the Kuwait didn't produce oil and have pro-US politic did there US will be involved in "liberation" of Kuwait?
>Why US didn't do anything about Sudan, Liberya or any other such countries? Just because there is no OIL there.
>What happens with human rights in Saudi Arabia?
>I always wonder why US didn't "liberate" Saudi Arabia instead of Iraq?
>Osama bin Laden is Saudi Arabian, isn't it?
>All his fortune is there. All support he gets from there and Pakistan. Then WHY Iraq?

Shouldn't the bigger question be why hasn't the UN done anything? And what is the UN doing for Osettia? Nothing as usual. They will probably make a statement that will never be enforced. An empty threat as usual. As to the comment earlier about where the major $ for the UN comes from and it supporting those interests, I think that has recently been disproven. What has the UN done for the U.S.?

Internally here, it will interesting to watch the two primary candidate's positions on Osettia/Georgia/Russia during the coming days. It may have a major impact on the election...