Not invade primo, that would be if georgia was already taken and they try to take it back or if we attack georgia. Not if the country itself ask for military aid first and we deliver. Or if we do make a diplomatic attack. Its called an alliance. Second, georgia doesn't own it in that quantities but secures a safe pasage for it.

However when I said make a stance you interprete me wrong. There is a distinct difference in a trade embargo and military aid or military threathening and starting a full scale military conflict. Fear is the best diplomatic weapon we have to prevent conflict. If georgia would be part of the nato, russia wouldn't dare to invade because of the still existant nuclear retaliation. There wouldn't have been a conflict inside georgia.

Seems to me if we blew up Russia's energy industry, it would stop Russia's arms buildup and teach you to become idependent of Russia

Win/win

idd Alan, that, and a nuclear threat beyond immagination.

"The US wants to freeze the nato corporation with russia"

you mean cooperation not corporation right ?

well to start with NATO was never cooperating with russia but was always pushing towards russian borders. If you recall the fall of Berlin wall then Gorbatchev was promised that NATO will not expand towards the east - NATO had broken this promise

When russians marched to Kosovo after Belgrade bombardment by NATO forces again Yeltsin was promissed that Kosovo will never be separated from Serbia - the promise was broken once again

I think russians have finally realised NATO can not be trusted and the only language it understands is as Bush put it - "might is right"

I will not be surprised if after installment of US shield in Poland with Patriot missiles added russians will follow with nuclear arsenals in Cuba and Venezuela (besides Belorussia and Kaliningrad installments)

This is all very sad for the tax payers on both sides - looks like military industrial complex is the only winner

Promises to USSR died with the USSR

Though we renewed many of them

"From  that point of view, it's a terrible pitty that the Russians sold Alaska to the Americans"

Alaska is still a LONG ways away from the mainland United States

the point is, you cannot acchieve it. Missile shields don't work and probably won't for the future to come.

Next to that, most nations are completely against any form of nuclear use. MAD is the word.

A last argument is nuclear fallout and the indirect consequences of such an operation.

Funny when Gerogia started the conflict then Russia gets 100% of the blame for it. And they get blamed from USA? Crazy

Who's talking nukes? I saw level the bastards with conventional bombs.  If they wanna take it to a nuclear showdown, THEN we turn the biosphere to plasma

"I saw level the bastards with conventional bombs."
?
You kill hundreds of thousands in Iraq and then you come and say that they are "bastards"?
Kinda idiotic comment.

"Installing a shield at enemy borders can weaken retaliation attack to a point where couple nuclear bombs penetrating your defences is a reasonable cost to achieve victory. This si the whole point about Chech and Polish shield US is installing there"
it is impossible to stop even a small amount of the ICBMs. Maybe, MAYBE you can avoid a few. Certainly not the submarines or the clusters. Then its still insignificant. But blasting them at home would destroy the rest of the world to anyway.