Russia booms, but auto investors' nerves must be jangling

[plane]

Former Russian President and now Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is seen driving a newl Lada Kalina. (Automotive Industry Data)

There is one big car market left in the world which is booming. Unfortunately that market is Russia. Russia's position as a potential jewel in the crown for the world's biggest car makers and worthy recipient of billions of investment dollars has been besmirched by its violent incursion into Georgia, and worries that it might do something similar in Ukraine and the Baltic States.

Germany is about to be overtaken as Europe's biggest car market by Russia. Not surprisingly, the world's leading manufacturers are investing heavily in Russia to meet huge untapped demand in a country which has few cars per head compared with modern Western countries. Russia is becoming especially attractive as European and U.S. economies wilt, taking car sales with them.

Article continues at link...
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...62/OPINION0339

[AMERICA 123]

As soon as we stop the 'New and Improved' - NOT 'Operation Rollbacker 3' aka 'Containment 2000' towards Russia, things will settle down.

The End of the Unipolar World view and policies cannot come soon enough - for America's own well being.

'America' and the World for that matter, is being massively mislead about who, what, why, and how we are screwing with the Russians - everywhere possible and in everyway possible.

We - and Israel are the problem, not the Russians as far as Georgia goes.

For those that are not paying attention and or have been mislead, the Georgian 'situation' is currently about 'obtaining' basing for an ( Illegally American 'assisted' ) - Israeli strike on Iran - another bad idea in and of itself.

Besides, just who the hell died and left us to run the world - poorly - spending borrowed money we don't have - and will likely not be able to payback - money which is desperately needed at home.

Meanwhile back at the ranch......

[Sinner]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

Besides, just who the hell died and left us to run the world

That would be the USSR. I agree with your post, the world cannot have just one superpower. Whether Russia steps back up to the plate or China takes it's place there needs to be another country to moderate American power and also do some of the world policing/aid work that the U.S is forced to taken on by itself.

[Bokl]

Lets see. Georgia attacked russian soldiers. Georgian General went on tv and declare war. Georgia started killing civilians and it is Russia fault. Media is always trying to brain wash people. First that American cars are crap now this. IT is crazy how people trust media.

[aa2]

Russia imo is our friend overall. Just in the first 6 months of this year, Russians bought 250,000 GM vehicles. They also bought well over 100,000 Fords in the first 6 months of 2008. In fact Chevy was the number 1 foreign brand, Hyundai the number 2, and Ford the number 3.

Russians are also buying Intel and AMD computers, Microsoft and other IT companies software, Cisco routers, HP equipment. They are starting to buy pharmacuetical products from the great pharmacuetical industry. A huge export directly from America to Russia is poultry and meat products.

[PA Dweller]

Originally Posted by Bokl

First that American cars are crap now this. IT is crazy how people trust media.

I totally agree. Even crazier than that is people wishing for another superpower to counter-balance the US. Yea the world needs another Cold War, with nuclear annihilation just a button push away. People in this nation and other Western nations have it too good and just need to find a way to complain about America.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

....We - and Israel are the problem, not the Russians as far as Georgia goes.

For those that are not paying attention and or have been mislead, the Georgian 'situation' is currently about 'obtaining' basing for an ( Illegally American 'assisted' ) - Israeli strike on Iran - another bad idea in and of itself.......

If you think Georgia would make any kind of "jumping off" point for an Israeli or US strike on Iran, I'd suggest you look at a map.

[AMERICA 123]

I have.

Several times .

Suggest you reacquaint yourself with American and UK shuttle bombing during WW2.

There are (many) better choices geographically speaking - but none that will allow it.

*******************

Thats just the short term objective.

Mid and Longterm are a much larger list.

Since its an Automotive forum, I'll point one out that relates to that.

Oil/Energy competition to the former 7 sisters.

And of course, we don't want anything about abiotic oil gettin' spread around and used.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

I have.

Several times .

Suggest you reacquaint yourself with American and UK shuttle bombing during WW2.

There are (many) better choices geographically speaking - but none that will allow it.....

Those same ones wouldn't allow a transit to Georgia.

And WWII shuttle bombing didn't involve a stop along the way. It involved flying directly to the target (from Britain), but landing at a different base (Italy or Russia), because the distance was too great to make it back to Britain. They could later make the reverse bombing run. Doolittle's raid was the first shuttle bombing, but it was a one way suicide run.

Israel already DID a run against Iraq's nuke plant without any side trip to Georgia. Iran isn't much further.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

Those same ones wouldn't allow a transit to Georgia.

Well, with a great deal more certainty - and 100% functional accuracy, we never allowed nontransponding aircraft with immediately alarming and enormous course deviations from filed flight plans to wander around the sky, did we - yet it happened - on 9/11 - with four aircraft - according to conventional knowledge.

*******************

Thats key - how they 'don't allow it'.

'Protesting' incursion after the fact or sending aircraft up to intercept who are 'oh darn', unable to make contact...... is not the same as meeting them in the air and either bringing them down or driving them off.

They do not need to stop in between - tanker options are too many to list - thats with or without counting anything from US.

********************

Also, get familiar with exactly how Israeli petroleum oil product needs have been met in times of crises - and how they developed their strategic weapons arsenal - both of which 'were not allowed'.

And finally, look carefully at the earlier reactor strike in Iraq .

There is more, but that should suffice.

If it doesn't, go look at the relationships between certain Israeli and American groups and the key people in Georgia - who were badly out intelled and miscalculated large when they started their little hidden in smoke and mirrors 'ethnic cleansing' program.

[CaptainDan]

Originally Posted by AMERICA 123

Well, with a great deal more certainty - and 100% functional accuracy, we never allowed nontransponding aircraft with immediately alarming and enormous course deviations from filed flight plans to wander around the sky, did we - yet it happened - on 9/11 - with four aircraft - according to conventional knowledge.

*******************

Thats key - how they 'don't allow it'.

'Protesting' incursion after the fact or sending aircraft up to intercept who are 'oh darn', unable to make contact...... is not the same as meeting them in the air and either bringing them down or driving them off.

They do not need to stop in between - tanker options are too many to list - thats with or without counting anything from US.

********************

Also, get familiar with exactly how Israeli petroleum oil product needs have been met in times of crises - and how they developed their strategic weapons arsenal - both of which 'were not allowed'.

And finally, look carefully at the earlier reactor strike in Iraq .

There is more, but that should suffice.

If it doesn't, go look at the relationships between certain Israeli and American groups and the key people in Georgia - who were badly out inteled and miscalculated large when they started their little hidden in smoke and mirrors 'ethnic cleansing' program.

The 9-11 planes WERE transponding (and were in fact legitimate flights) and deviated very little. Plus it's pretty unimaginable to compare the very tame pre 9-11 US air space to the heavily militarized (and jumpy) Mideast's airspace.

And of course, with "tanker options" there is no need to increase the flight distance, and increase hostile nation flyovers by diverting to Georgia. And if you weren't planning to stop there, what's the point to going there?

I would agree that the US would likely support Israel in such a move (at the very least, not interfere). I'm therefore also sure the American-controlled airspace over Iraq would be available, but they are VERY unlikely to get any such leeway from Russia, Turkey, and/or Iran to challenging them in getting to Georgia. And there just isn't any benefit to doing so. In this case, the direct route is the most accessible route. I am assuming that they could "bull" their way across weak, ineffectual Jordan.

Now, I would certainly want none of this to happen, but I can also understand that if the guy who said, "We will wipe Israel off the map" were to acquire nuclear weapons, that this might make the Israelis somewhat scared.

[AMERICA 123]

Originally Posted by CaptainDan

The 9-11 planes WERE transponding (and were in fact legitimate flights) and deviated very little. Plus it's pretty unimaginable to compare the very tame pre 9-11 US air space to the heavily militarized (and jumpy) Mideast's airspace.

Sigh, lets just put this on the shelf - and perhaps come back to it later - in a more appropriate setting.

And of course, with "tanker options" there is no need to increase the flight distance, and increase hostile nation flyovers by diverting to Georgia. And if you weren't planning to stop there, what's the point to going there?

You haven't even begun to account for the all the constraints involved - many of which are 'non technical' in nature.

I would agree that the US would likely support Israel in such a move (at the very least, not interfere). I'm therefore also sure the American-controlled airspace over Iraq would be available,

Depends on this or that - and also who, what why and how - after that.

but they are VERY unlikely to get any such leeway from Russia, Turkey, and/or Iran to challenging them in getting to Georgia.

Gee, are you sure about Russia ????

Who said anything about gittin' in.....expand your thinking

And there just isn't any benefit to doing so.

Dead wrong in the most fundamental way possible. Then there is a sort of 'pop up' option.... which hopefully and most probably is 'off the table'.

Now, I would certainly want none of this to happen,

Good, neither do I - in case you haven't noticed I'm not a big fan of the attack on Pearl Harbor - and while its not an adequate or legitimate justification - The Japanese had more justification than we or Israel do with regards to Iran. Actually in regards to IranUS, its the other way around

but I can also understand that if the guy who said, "We will wipe Israel off the map" were to acquire nuclear weapons, that this might make the Israelis somewhat scared.

As you say, if.

Blessedly he did not.

Very unfortunately, he was misquoted - and in a sense, we all know the rest.

If you do your homework here - you can confirm all this yourself.

And if you were told you the story behind the misquote sourcing and related - you might not believe it anyway - I didn't until confirmed.

No, it is not an American or Israeli source or spin story - to start.

********************

Something for you to consider although there is 'better' out there its a very good piece.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...02/comment.usa

* Jonathan Steele

o The Guardian,
o Friday June 2 2006


It is 50 years since the greatest misquotation of the cold war.

At a Kremlin reception for western ambassadors in 1956, the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev announced: "We will bury you."

Those four words were seized on by American hawks as proof of aggressive Soviet intent.

Doves who pointed out that the full quotation gave a less threatening message were drowned out.

Khrushchev had actually said: "Whether you like it or not, history is on our side. We will bury you."

It was a harmless boast about socialism's eventual victory in the ideological competition with capitalism.

He was not talking about war.

Now we face a similar propaganda distortion of remarks by Iran's president.

Ask anyone in Washington, London or Tel Aviv if they can cite any phrase uttered by Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and the chances are high they will say

he wants Israel "wiped off the map".

Again it is four short words, though the distortion is worse than in the Khrushchev case.

The remarks are not out of context.

They are wrong, pure and simple.

Ahmadinejad never said them.

Farsi speakers have pointed out that he was mistranslated.

In technical terms the distortion is even 'worse' than not saying it at all.