Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Edbert1 on May 25, 2006, 08:09:10 AM
-
I thought this article was on target and wanted to hear other opinions.
Break Point
By George Friedman
A government has been formed in Iraq. It is a defective government, in the sense that it does not yet have a defense or interior minister. It is an ineffective government, insofar as the ability to govern directly is at this point limited institutionally, politically and functionally. Ultimately, what exists now is less a government than a political arrangement between major elements of Iraq's three main ethnic groups. And that is what makes this agreement of potentially decisive importance: If it holds, it represents the political foundation of a regime.
If it holds.
If it holds, the rest is almost easy. If it doesn't hold, the rest is impossible. Therefore, the fate of this political arrangement will define the future of Iraq and, with that, the future of the region -- and in some ways, the future of the American position in the region. It is not hyperbole to say that everything depends on this deal.
The deal that has been shaped is about two things: power and money. First, it addresses the composition of power in Iraq -- defining the Shia as the dominant group, based on demographics, the Kurds next and the Sunnis as the smallest group. At the same time, it provides institutional and political guarantees to the Sunnis that their interests will not simply be ignored and that they will not be crushed by the Shia and Kurds. In terms of money, we are talking about oil. Iraq's oil fields are in the south, unquestionably in *****e country, and in the north, in the borderland between Kurd and Sunni territory. One of the points of this arrangement is to assure that oil revenues will not be controlled on a simply regional basis, but will be at least partially controlled by the central government. Therefore, at least some of that money will go to the Sunnis, regardless of what arrangements are made on the ground with the Kurds.
The Sunnis got this deal for a simple reason: Their insurgency made them impossible to ignore. First, the insurgency forced the Americans to recognize that their initial inclination, de-Baathification, also meant de-Sunnification of Iraq, and that the price for that would be painful. Second, the insurgency threatened Iraq with partition and civil war. Any such partition would have made Iran the dominant power in the region, something that would be unacceptable to Saudi Arabia and the other governments in the Persian Gulf. The Saudis were no friends of the Baathists in Iraq, but the thought of partition -- and of only the United States to provide security against Iranian influence -- forced them to mobilize Arab support for the Sunnis. The insurgency was the Sunni leaders' prime bargaining chip, and they played it well.
Now there is a twofold question that must be faced. First, in response to the deal that has been made, can the Sunni political leadership move decisively to end the insurgency, or at least reduce its tempo? And second, is it willing to do so? The implications are significant: If the insurgency continues, the entire political agreement will cease to be meaningful to the Americans, who are sponsoring and, in effect, guaranteeing the deal. Moreover, if Sunni insurgents continue to target Iraqi Shia, the quietly vicious counterattacks that the Shia have carried out will surge. The Sunnis blow things up; the Shia come quietly and kill their enemies. If the sectarian violence continues, it will mean there is no political foundation, no government and no change in the situation in Iraq. In that case, the United States will have to choose between remaining and mitigating a chaotic situation, or leaving and letting events run their course -- which also means leaving an open field for Iranian ambitions. From the American point of view, this agreement has to work. And everything depends on the Sunnis.
Core Assumptions and Brass Tacks
Insurgencies don't simply float in the air. It isn't a question of just loading a car with explosives or setting up an improvised explosive device. Someone has to obtain, store and distribute explosives. Someone has to train people to build the device. Someone has to communicate with others without getting caught. Someone has to recruit new insurgents without being detected, and without allowing enemy agents to slip in. Someone has to provide security. And all of this has to happen somewhere, in a geographic space.
That space has been, for the most part, the villages and urban neighborhoods of the Sunni Triangle. The insurgency has been rooted there, the insurgents are known and their presence is protected in those neighborhoods. They are provided with food and shelter, and the village and neighborhood network warns them of enemy approaches. Mao Zedong said once that revolutionaries must be to the people as the tongue is to the teeth: If the support of the population is withdrawn, the revolution collapses.
At the heart of this political settlement, then, is the expectation that -- in return for political and financial concessions -- the Sunni leadership will order the insurgents they do control to cease attacks, and will order the population to withdraw support from the insurgents they don't control. In other words, the Baathist and nationalist insurgents who are linked to the Sunni leadership would halt operations, while the jihadists led by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi -- who have their own set of needs and goals in the region -- would either halt operations themselves or have the shield of the Sunni community withdrawn. The insurgency would not just end suddenly, but would decline fairly rapidly as recalcitrant troops were squeezed out of the Sunni region.
...continued...
-
...continued...
Given this dynamic, we would expect a surge of violence from elements who oppose the political agreement in Baghdad and see themselves being squeezed out. Their hope will be that the violence, particularly against the Shia, will trigger a *****e response and cause the settlement to collapse. But the success or failure of that gamble will hinge on the answer to the core question: To what extent does the Sunni leadership control the insurgents? We assume that it is not total control, and we assume that there are elements among the Sunni leadership who oppose the political deal.
But the central assumption is that the bulk of the leadership has bought into the deal and, therefore, that the bulk of the insurgents will follow their lead. There also is an assumption that the bulk of the Sunni population will follow these leaders and withdraw support for remaining insurgents. Now, these insurgents could enjoy some lingering support among the public, and they could coerce others into protecting them. This would lead to a short but intense struggle within the Sunni community that, given the correlation of forces, ultimately would result in the defeat of the diehards. They would hang on -- waging a campaign that would be painful but not decisive, increasingly marginalized and ineffective.
This is the likely path, but it assumes two things. The first is that the political wing that has negotiated this agreement is able to assert control over the bulk of the Sunni population. In other words, one assumes that the Americans and Shia have been negotiating with the right people. If not, then the political settlement will not end the insurgency, and the violence will continue. We do not see this as the likely problem, however: The leadership ought to be able to deliver the bulk of the Sunni community and therefore reduce the fighting, if they want to.
The real question is whether they want to. As we said before, the insurgency is the only bargaining chip the Sunnis have. It was because of the insurgency that the Sunnis were not completely bypassed by the Americans and Shia. If they stand down but retain the ability to resume their offensive, the political deal can hold. But if, by standing down, the Sunnis demoralize their forces or permit intelligence on the location of weapons caches and personnel to diffuse to the Americans or Shia over time, the Sunnis could find themselves in a position from which they no longer can enforce the agreement.
So the key calculation for the Sunnis is this: If they stand down, can they maintain a credible force that is ready to serve their political purposes?
The demand that Iraq's various militias disarm has been focused on the *****e militias. But at the end of the day, the Shia are the dominant force in the Iraqi government: If their militias were integrated into the military and security structures, they still would be available to serve *****e political purposes. If, on the other hand, the Sunni militias were disarmed or integrated into the Iraqi military and security structures, they would lose their force and their leverage.
Obviously, this is why the defense and interior ministers have not yet been designated. It is not really about the individuals to be named, as their power will be circumscribed by the Cabinet. The issue is not the ministers themselves, but how the ministries will be run. More accurately, since it is these ministries that will control Iraq's military and internal security forces, the question that must be answered is how these forces will be configured. The Shia do not need guarantees. The Sunnis do. So the architecture of these ministries -- and the constitution of military and police units -- has everything to do with Sunni security.
There is a chicken-or-egg problem. The Sunnis do not want to begin standing down their forces until structural guarantees are in place. The Shia -- and in this case, the Americans -- are not going to give those guarantees until they see that the Sunnis can and will control the insurgents. They will not both confirm the Sunni position in the ministries and continue to endure the insurgency. They want to see steps toward the insurgency being controlled. The naming of the ministers is more symbolic than real, but the ministries themselves are very real. The Sunnis cannot be both in the army and making policy and still be waging an insurgency.
Other Considerations
There also is a real question as to whether the Shia want the agreement to work. Certainly the Iranians would like another go-around in order to increase not only the power of the Shia in general, but of those Iraqi Shia who are close to the Iranians. A civil war would increase *****e dependence on the Iranians, since they would need weapons and political support. The Iraqi Shia do not seem to have much appetite for Iranian ambitions at the moment. They will dominate the government; they do not need to obliterate the Sunnis at the cost of a long civil war. They have most of what they want. Still, there are those in the *****e community who are ambitious to displace the current power structure, and who see civil war as the way to achieve this. They are the ones who will continue with operations against the Sunni community, hoping to prevent a stand-down by the insurgents. The *****e leaders, therefore, have a similar (though smaller) problem to the Sunnis'. They can contain the more aggressive and ambitious Shia. But Iran's ability to destabilize their community is the wild card.
This points up another dynamic as well. The United States and Iran have been engaged in a seemingly incomprehensible round of meetings, non-meetings, threats, offers of accommodation and so on over Iraq and nuclear weapons. Each side has made strange noises, given contemptuous shrugs and pulled fierce faces at the other. One would think that war was imminent. In fact, the opposite is true: Each is trying to avoid war by appearing fearsome and slightly nuts. The Americans want to scare the Iranians away from destabilizing Iraq's *****e community. The Iranians want to make one last run at the Americans to maximize the power of the Shia -- and particularly that of their allies -- in the Iraqi government.
The Americans obviously want a settlement. And the Iraqi Shia want one. They are less dependent on Tehran than it might appear, and it seems they are prepared to follow through. The Sunnis, all doubts and worries aside, have every reason to want a settlement, and it is unlikely that they will get a better one. Certainly there are Sunnis who don't want a settlement, but it seems to us that they can be dealt with if the Sunni leaders want to deal with them. At this point, the only alternative to this settlement is civil war -- and it is hard to see a major player who benefits from a civil war, even if plenty of minor ones might.
For the Americans, the deal at hand is the exit strategy from the war. As violence declines, the United States can draw down its forces and begin concentrating on the question of what it plans to do in Afghanistan, the next item on the agenda. On the other hand, if the agreement in Baghdad blows apart, there is little point in American forces remaining in Iraq. With 130,000 troops, the United States could not contain a civil war; the forces could only take casualties, while achieving nothing. The ideal outcome would be a drawdown culminating in a residual force of, say, 40,000 troops based outside of heavily populated regions.
This goal is not unreachable at this point. It is possible to recoup the poorly played American hand, to some extent. But the fate of the political deal is not within U.S. control. The outcome depends, first, on the Sunni leadership and its desire and ability to suppress the insurgency. It depends, second, on the Iraqi *****e leaders' ability to dominate their community and resist destabilization by Iran. And it depends, finally, on the Iranians accepting the current situation without surging forces covertly into Iraq.
In other words, the United States has become, to a great extent, a bystander. Washington can make whatever guarantees it wants, but the calculus by all sides now is whether they can secure their interests with their own resources. At this point, the United States is growing less and less relevant to the outcome in Iraq, though it remains urgently interested in what that outcome will be.
If we had to guess, we would say that the political arrangement should work, more or less. But we don't have to guess. It is now nearly Memorial Day. The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency -- or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the deal holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful.
Thus, we are at a break point -- at least for the Americans.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.
EDIT: THe dirty-word-blocker edits out the word "S H I I T E"...freudian perhaps?
-
I agree.
We're screwed.
We were from the start.
Real question... was it worth it... and did we learn anything.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Real question... was it worth it... and did we learn anything.
Was it worth it?
I'd say yes for now, but it might well take 10-20 years to know for sure (if even then). We definitely managed to focus a majority of the energy from suicidal maniacs to a place where we have trained and equiped professionals ready to deal with them appropriately.
Things I learned:
1.) Look both ways before you cross the street.
2.) Don't run with scissors.
3.) You can not force civilized culture into the hearts and minds of barbarians.
-
I remain hopeful that within 10 years Iraq can self govern and provide cheap oil to the US.
Did you know China is entering into talks with Cuba to begin massive drilling off the coast of Cuba for what could ultimately be one billion barrels worth of oil that the US congress wont allow being tapped into because of the harm that could happen to the environment. So, we need that cheap middle eastern oil secured while China sucks our local supplies dry.
Whatever we get as a nation, we deserve it collectively, all of us :cry
-
Originally posted by Yeager
I remain hopeful that within 10 years Iraq can self govern and provide cheap oil to the US.
This two conditions contradict each other. If it will be self-governed then why should they provide US with cheap oil?
-
hopless
no
no
-
Originally posted by Boroda
This two conditions contradict each other. If it will be self-governed then why should they provide US with cheap oil?
Out of the goodness of their hearts and the profound sense of obligation.
After all, we were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.
-
I bet this conflict in Iraq will last at least another 2 - 5 years min.
"coalition" forces try to help Iraqies but the Iraqies dont want their help, so they rebel... and the "coalition" forces try to stop them from rebeling... and they rebel more... kinda see the pattern??? we'll be lucky if it ends in the next 2-5 years... and why did they stop searching for Osama?
They said he wasnt in a position to control talaban forces... yet he uses them to get messages to the press... kinda doesnt make sense to me...
idk wtf do i kno.. im only a canadian :rolleyes:.
-
Yes, the US and it's allies have just quit looking for A-Q operatives and OBL.
Kabul, Afghanistan - A top al-Qaeda strategist with a $5 million bounty on his head and followers from Afghanistan to Europe has been captured in Pakistan, a U.S. law-enforcement official confirmed...
...Nasar, a 47-year-old Syrian-Spanish national, was seized in the southwestern Pakistani city of Quetta in November 2005
-
N00K Them.
-
and make evrything round it radioactive... and kill hundreds of thousands "innocent" bistandards... neucular warfare is pointless... so much death for wat??? oil?? we should just pull out all the troops, and if it gets worse... just send em all bak in... :noid :t
-
n00k!!11oneone!~!! zOMFg
-
dude LAY OF THE DRUGS! or take more! just do something!
-
Whats not to like about a n00k?
Fast, effective, takes care of business.
PS- Never did do drugs. Cute though, I like it. :aok
-
My analysis is, we are on track & doing fine. Everyone knew there would be heavy U.S. casualties when we went in, you can't occupy a country for as long as ten years (that's how long they said it could take in the begining) without taking casualties; even in a country you liberated from a third party aggressor.
The W.M.D.'s were there, we know they were, Sadman used them on his own people, the U.S. forces just can't go into Iran & Syria to get what was trucked over to them at the momment which was the biggest portion of what he had. It was said, the most dangerous job in post-war Iraq would be the backhoe operator & I believe that is true.
Our government got us into the untied nations & they got us into the problems in the middle east. Joining the untied nations has been our biggest mistake to date, besides giving back territory gained by our soldiers sacrifices, it's funny, the land we took & kept we didn't deserve (Hawaii for one) & the lands we deserved we didn't keep such as France, Germany, the Iranian oil platforms in the persian gulf etc.
It was U.S. & British jets, our pilots, our money, our nations relations with the rest of the world that the untied nations put on the table when they came up with that "no fly zone" in Iraq. The Iraqi military was painting our planes with AA radar daily, we had the right to go in there as a violation of their surrender just on that alone.
The only thing Bush has done that I think is crap, is flip-flop after the end of govt vs. govt hostilities & say we went in to spread democracy, that's not why we went & he shouldn't try to crawfish & say that it was, our attack on Iraq was justified & it would be justified if we stomp the guts out of any country that threatens our safety or that of any of our allies (including france & canada)
-
All Iraqs bases are belong to us
We are the oil makers and the oil takers, we are the oil heart breakers.
You guys should have joined the coalition of the willing boroda, we would have given you some oil :D
-
FLASH
no... really...
****FLASH****
wallah!
No problem!
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Out of the goodness of their hearts and the profound sense of obligation.
After all, we were greeted as liberators. The parades were spectacular.
I understand this two lines as a bitter sarcasm, am i right?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
I understand this two lines as a bitter sarcasm, am i right?
You understand perfectly. :aok
-
OH PISH!!!
Check out how well our gov't was doing 90 years after our constitution.
None of this stuff happens fast.
hap
-
Originally posted by Hap
OH PISH!!!
Check out how well our gov't was doing 90 years after our constitution.
None of this stuff happens fast.
hap
Key difference is that we weren't sitting around waiting for someone else to come and liberate us. None of this stuff happens fast, especially when there was no Iraqi revolution to begin with.
-
In the Middle East the "Thumbs up"-guesture is considered as an obscene guesture - like the "middlefinger"-guesture in the West.
So it was extremely funny to see all the iraqis who were given their "liberators" this guesture, when they were driving though Bagdad, who were answering with the same guestures.
Image this with middlefingers in an western country.
So at least there is still some fun in all of the nonsense of the War in Iraq.
-
Originally posted by babek-
In the Middle East the "Thumbs up"-guesture is considered as an obscene guesture - like the "middlefinger"-guesture in the West.
So it was extremely funny to see all the iraqis who were given their "liberators" this guesture, when they were driving though Bagdad, who were answering with the same guestures.
Image this with middlefingers in an western country.
So at least there is still some fun in all of the nonsense of the War in Iraq.
Do you have pictures of this? I don't recall seeing this on TV. I do recall many people lining the streets and clapping their hands in unison.
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/2934011.stm
Thumbs-up
Much has already been made of the thumbs-up gesture that British and American soldiers have received from "welcoming" Iraqis. Unlike in many western cultures, in the Middle East the thumbs-up can be an insult, roughly translating as "up yours". But the US Army's Defense Language Institute says that after the first Gulf War, the gesture was adopted by some Iraqis, along with the ok sign, as a "symbol of co-operation and freedom".
-
ahh yes, the dreaded "thumbs up" revolt :aok
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Key difference is that we weren't sitting around waiting for someone else to come and liberate us. None of this stuff happens fast, especially when there was no Iraqi revolution to begin with.
Since, the US in 1861 wsn't sitting around waiting for someone else to come and liberate us . . . . WHAT?
or . . .
Since a key difference exists betwee America in 1861 and Iraqi in 2006, smart guys conclude . . . . .
You finish the sentence because while I agree with you the difference you cited exists and it maybe "key" too, so what do you conclude given the difference and similarity? Reform dosen't take a long time?
hap
-
Originally posted by Yeager
You guys should have joined the coalition of the willing boroda, we would have given you some oil :D
I prefer unrefined sunflowerseed oil in my salad. Do they make such things in Iraq? As for the oil that is pumped from the groud - maybe it will be a better idea to sell us natural gas or maybe vodka?...
Our government and capital are perfectly satisfied with the situation in Iraq. I suggest you guys to invade Brazil, so we can also benefit from high prices on a global timber market.
Our next most splendid resource is fresh water, I just can't imagine who you need to attack to raise prices on it. I suggest Antarctic. I always wanted to join an Antarctic Liberation Front.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Key difference is that we weren't sitting around waiting for someone else to come and liberate us. None of this stuff happens fast, especially when there was no Iraqi revolution to begin with.
Tell that to the Kurds who had chemical weapons used on them.
-
Originally posted by Mattel
Tell that to the Kurds who had chemical weapons used on them.
Another suggestion: why not invade Turkey, where Kurds are at least as opressed as they were under Saddam?
Frankly speaking I'm sick of all this "liberation" nonsence. I was born in a country that declared such a "liberation" a sacred thing, and I am surprised by the people who sincerely believe in such stuff.
-
Originally posted by Mattel
Tell that to the Kurds who had chemical weapons used on them.
Ancient history.
-
Originally posted by Hap
Since, the US in 1861 wsn't sitting around waiting for someone else to come and liberate us . . . . WHAT?
or . . .
Since a key difference exists betwee America in 1861 and Iraqi in 2006, smart guys conclude . . . . .
You finish the sentence because while I agree with you the difference you cited exists and it maybe "key" too, so what do you conclude given the difference and similarity? Reform dosen't take a long time?
hap
I'm simply stating that the U.S. timetable isn't necessarily an accurate expectation given the circumstances of their liberation which doesn't at all parallel our own experience. This comparison is a flawed soundbite in my opinion.
On the other hand, I suspect that the Iraqi people are more likely to sub-divide the country than to find a single unifying government in the next decade. To an extent, we went down this exact same path until the end of the U.S. Civil War. Hell... if we put the Iraqis on that timetable, they won't be truly unified for another century.
-
Originally posted by Mattel
Tell that to the Kurds who had chemical weapons used on them.
Yup, and it happened when Saddam was still a buddy of the West....
Interesting article, Edbert.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
My analysis is, we are on track & doing fine. Everyone knew there would be heavy U.S. casualties when we went in, you can't occupy a country for as long as ten years (that's how long they said it could take in the begining)...
Can you source that please?
...the U.S. forces just can't go into Iran & Syria to get what was trucked over to them at the momment which was the biggest portion of what he had...
Can you source that as well. According the post invasion CIA investigation, it was concluded that Iraq had destroyed it's WMD years before.
The Iraq Survay Group's Final Report can be found here...
http://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/library/report/2004/isg-final-report/isg-final-report_vol1_rfp-07.htm
Joining the untied nations has been our biggest mistake to date,
The US didn't just join the UN, the US created it.
besides giving back territory gained by our soldiers sacrifices, it's funny, the land we took & kept we didn't deserve (Hawaii for one) & the lands we deserved we didn't keep such as France, Germany, the Iranian oil platforms in the persian gulf etc.
I don't see how the US could have kept France, the US wasn't at war with them.
It was U.S. & British jets, our pilots, our money, our nations relations with the rest of the world that the untied nations put on the table when they came up with that "no fly zone" in Iraq.
The UN doesn't put anything on the table. Member states on the Security Council do. And no member put the "no fly zones" on the table. The British and Americans created the "no fly zones". They justified the creation out of their interpretation of Security Council resolution 688. An interpretation that was controversial at best. Illegal under international law at worst.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/1175950.stm
You can find the text of 688 here...
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm
The Iraqi military was painting our planes with AA radar daily, we had the right to go in there as a violation of their surrender just on that alone.
Perhaps not. Resolution 687 which contained the surrender directions for Iraq, directed Iraq to cease all hostile actions toward UN Member States. But at the same time noted the ceasation of combat operations by Member States. I would argue that when Britain and the US commenced combat operations in the "no fly zones" under the dubious auspices of resolution 688, they were commiting and act of war and that Iraq had the right to defend itself.
Reslution 687 can be found here as well...
http://www.un.org/Docs/scres/1991/scres91.htm
...our attack on Iraq was justified & it would be justified if we stomp the guts out of any country that threatens our safety or that of any of our allies (including france & canada)
I don't see how it's been proven that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. If anything the opposite seems to be true. And although I appriciate the sentitment, Canada can decide for itself who is a threat to our safety.
-
A few thousand bodybags makes the American public understand and think the realities. It seems that it has to be reminded every for every 10..15 years, though. Short memory unfortunately. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war, Iraq, Iran ?
And the war(s) goes on...money and oil...
-
Originally posted by Mattel
Tell that to the Kurds who had chemical weapons used on them.
"The Halabja poison gas attack was an incident on 15 March-19 March 1988 during a major battle in the Iran-Iraq war when chemical weapons were used by the Iraqi government forces to kill a number of people in the Iraqi Kurdish town of Halabja (population 80,000). Estimates of casualties range from several hundred to 7,000 people. Halabja is located about 150 miles northeast of Baghdad and 8-10 miles from the Iranian border.
...
Almost all current accounts of the incident regard Iraq as the party responsible for the gas attack, which occurred during the Iran-Iraq War. The war between Iran and Iraq was in its eighth year when, on March 16 and 17, 1988, Iraq dropped poison gas on the Kurdish city of Halabja, then held by Iranian troops and Iraqi Kurdish guerrillas allied with Tehran; throughout the war, Iran had supplied the Iraqi Kurdish rebels with safe haven and other military support.
...
Some debate existed, however, over the question of whether Iraq was really the responsible party. The U.S. State Department, in the immediate aftermath of the incident, instructed its diplomats to say that Iran was partly to blame.
A preliminary Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) study at the time concluded, apparently by determining the chemicals used by looking at images of the victims, that it was in fact Iran that was responsible for the attack, an assessment which was used subsequently by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) for much of the early 1990's. The CIA's senior political analyst for the Iran-Iraq war, Stephen C. Pelletiere, co-authored an unclassified analysis of the war [1] which contained a brief summary of the DIA study's key points. In a January 31, 2003 New York Times [2] opinion piece, Pelletiere summarized the DIA's findings and noted that because of the DIA's conclusion there was not sufficient evidence to definitively determine whether Iraq or Iran was responsible. Pelletiere also felt that the administration of George W. Bush was not being forthright when squarely placing blame on Iraq, since it contradicted the conclusion of the DIA study. However the DIA's final position on the attack was in fact much less certain than this preliminary report suggests, with its final conclusions, in June 2003, asserting just that there was insufficient evidence, but concluding that "Iraq ..used chemical weapons against Kurdish civilians in 1988" [3]. The CIA altered its position radically in the late 1990s and cited Halabja frequently in its evidence of WMD before the 2003 invasion [4]"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack
-
Originally posted by babek-
In the Middle East the "Thumbs up"-gesture is considered as an obscene gesture - like the "middlefinger"-gesture in the West.
The middle finger gesture comes from English bowmen showing the French they still had their fingers to pull back the bow.
The Mongols pinched the bowstring between their thumb and index finger rather than the european style of using three fingers to pull a bow.
I wonder if there is a similar story of the Mongols showing Arabs their thumbs in defiance...
-
Originally posted by babek-
So it was extremely funny to see all the iraqis who were given their "liberators" this guesture, when they were driving though Bagdad, who were answering with the same guestures.
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Do you have pictures of this? I don't recall seeing this on TV. I do recall many people lining the streets and clapping their hands in unison.
Babek.? Hello?
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Frankly speaking I'm sick of all this "liberation" nonsence. I was born in a country that declared such a "liberation" a sacred thing, and I am surprised by the people who sincerely believe in such stuff.
well..the russian way of liberation has a twist to it...and u`ve never even been on the recieving end of it
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I'm simply stating that the U.S. timetable isn't necessarily an accurate expectation.
I'd be happily surprised if during my lifetime Iraq enjoys peace without tyranny.
hap
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
The middle finger gesture comes from English bowmen showing the French they still had their fingers to pull back the bow.
The Mongols pinched the bowstring between their thumb and index finger rather than the european style of using three fingers to pull a bow.
I wonder if there is a similar story of the Mongols showing Arabs their thumbs in defiance...
Mongols occupied Russia for 300 years, but in Russia "thumb up" means "good", "way to go".
BTW "Mongols" is in fact a name of a very small tribe where Ghenghiz was from.
-
Originally posted by babek-
In the Middle East the "Thumbs up"-guesture is considered as an obscene guesture - like the "middlefinger"-guesture in the West.
So it was extremely funny to see all the iraqis who were given their "liberators" this guesture, when they were driving though Bagdad, who were answering with the same guestures.
Image this with middlefingers in an western country.
So at least there is still some fun in all of the nonsense of the War in Iraq.
Funny, I lived in the Middle East and that was never a bad sign there, it was just the same as it is here.
Sounds like a bunch of BS.
-
Originally posted by Dago
Funny, I lived in the Middle East and that was never a bad sign there, it was just the same as it is here.
Sounds like a bunch of BS.
yup..i live in the mid east and i`ve never heard about it
-
Can you source that please?
Can I source what? The president of the United States exact words that repeated over & over in pulic in front of cameras that U.S. troops could be required in Iraq for as long as 10 years? Not without looking up the links, if it bothers you, you look it up. It is no state secret.
Can you source that as well. According the post invasion CIA investigation, it was concluded that Iraq had destroyed it's WMD years before.
Post invasion CIA report? The Iraqi Survey Group was an international 1,200 person group, not a CIA operation per se, & from what I have read in the very link you gave, they did hide their activities & the report does not mention the sattelite imagry of the truck convoys leaving Iraq & entering Syria & Iran which was also shown on news outlets over & over again...again I say, if you want the proof, look it up yourself.
The US didn't just join the UN, the US created it.
I never said the U.S. didn't help to create the U.N. I said joining the U.N. was our biggest mistake, creating it would have been fine if we hadn't joined it too. So what's your point?
I don't see how the US could have kept France, the US wasn't at war with them
Then you don't see very well. We were at war with anyone shooting at us & the vichy french were shooting at us. Besides, when you have boots on the ground & you control the territory, you can keep whatever you want to keep. You make some connection between being at war with someone & keeping the territory you occupy & there is no connection. For instance; We didn't declare war on Hawaii....a handful of sailors with rifles took it on a whim, no war declared & right or wrong it belongs to the U.S.
The UN doesn't put anything on the table. Member states on the Security Council do
Wouldn't you call that splitting hairs since the "security council" is ap art of the U.N.?
Perhaps not
No perhaps not too it. If we win a war & the enemy signs a cease fire & then violates it, we can do whatever we want up to & including carrying on with hostilities.
I don't see how it's been proven that Iraq was an immediate threat to the US. If anything the opposite seems to be true. And although I appriciate the sentitment, Canada can decide for itself who is a threat to our safety.
You dont? I suppose you think govts. who openly call for the destruction of canada aren't a threat? Govts. who pay suicide bombers surviving family members huge ammounts of cash as a pay off for their service aren't a threat?? LOL!! You bask in the security provided to you by your proximity to the U.S. & you want to act smug & superior? Oh Canada can indeed decide for itself who's a threat to them & who will be the first ones called to help you when you encounter that threat? The United States of America, that's who. Be glad I'm not in charge of the U.S. military or our foriegn affairs, I wouldn't help canada fight off the flu. After you got your hats handed to you & shown the door, I'd come in & retake the country & keep it. I would then kick all of you out & cut down half the timber to build resort lodges so decent American people could have a nice place to vacation in the summer.
-
there are times when the term 'arrogant american pig' is soooooooo appropriate.
brenjen.. the last paragraph was a bit much. ;)
it is unfortunate that not a few american citizens put maple leafs on their backpacks when touring abroad.. makes you wonder why most american civilians, caught outside their comfy towns and in harms way in foriegn lands suddenly wake up to the reality that there is price for being arrogant... and it's usually on their heads; for as long as it's attached to their neck.
-
I don't know about the last paragraph, but I concede the last sentence was a bit much..in fact I shoudn't have typed that last sentence.
-
if I ever tour abroad it will be with at least a battalion :D
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
For instance; We didn't declare war on Hawaii....a handful of sailors with rifles took it on a whim, no war declared & right or wrong it belongs to the U.S.
With all due respect, you havent a clue what you are talking about. A handful of sailors? Heh. Yeah right. There are plenty of letters still in existence to and from the US Ambassador which prove (if not conspiracy) at least that a good part of Congress knew of the plans for the Marines to come ashore and help US businessmen on the island of Oahu take the legal ruler of the islands prisoner and declare them the property of the United States. The President afterwards (President Cleveland) even agreed that Hawaii had been taken illegally and attempted to restore the crown to the deposed Queen, but the rest is a story of wounded pride and politics.
In 1893, Queen Liliuokalani sought to empower herself and Hawaiians through a new constitution which she herself had drawn up and now desired to promulgate as the new law of the land. It was Queen Liliuokalani's right as a sovereign to issue a new constitution through an edict from the throne. A group led by Sanford B. Dole sought to overthrow the institution of the monarchy. The American minister in Hawaii, John L. Stevens, called for troops to take control of Iolani Palace and various other governmental buildings. In 1894, the Queen, was deposed, the monarchy abrogated, and a provisional government was established which later became the Republic of Hawaii.
In 1893, James H. Blount, newly appointed American minister to Hawaii, arrived representing President Grover Cleveland. Blount listened to both sides, annexationists and restorationists, and concluded the Hawaiian people aligned with the Queen. Blount and Cleveland agreed the Queen should be restored. Blount's final report implicated the American minister Stevens in the illegal overthrow of Liliuokalani. Albert S. Willis, Cleveland's next American minister offered the crown back to the Queen on the condition she pardon and grant general amnesty to those who had dethroned her. She initially refused but soon she changed her mind and offered clemency. This delay compromised her political position and President Cleveland had released the entire issue of the Hawaiian revolution to Congress for debate. The annexationists promptly lobbied Congress against restoration of the monarchy. On July 4, 1894, the Republic of Hawaii with Sanford B. Dole as president was proclaimed. It was recognized immediately by the United States government.
In 1895, Liliuokalani was arrested and forced to reside in Iolani Palace after a cache of weapons was found in the gardens of her home in Washington Place. She denied knowing of the existence of this cache and was reportedly unaware of others' efforts to restore the royalty. In 1896, she was released and returned to her home at Washington Place where she lived for the next two decades. Hawaii was annexed to the United States through a joint resolution of the U. S. Congress in 1898 . The "ex-"queen died due to complications from a stroke in 1917. A statue of her was erected on the grounds of the State Capital in Honolulu.
-
corporate theives. corrupted diplomats and congressmen.
the more things change, the more they stay the same
-
With all due respect, you havent a clue what you are talking about
Let me get this straight, you say I don't have a clue & then you back up what I said. Hmmm, who is IT that doesn't have a clue?
Hawaii was taken without a declaration of war. Yes or no?
Hawaii was taken by 150 Marines and Sailors from the USS BOSTON. Yes or No?
Hawaii; right or wrong is a state in the United States & therefore belongs forever to the United States. Yes or No?
The answer to all three is Yes.
I call that a handful of sailors & captured on a whim & Hawaii belongs to the U.S. PERMANENTLY.
-
It wasnt done on a whim, it was pre-planned for months and executed with United States Marines, not a "handful of sailors". It was led by US officials with the knowledge and endorsement (even if not publicly) of US Congressmen. It is a state now yes. Whether it remains so forever is a topic still being debated today. And gaining support. The ONLY reason Hawaii is still a US state is because of it's strategic importance to the US military and our national defense. You certainly have a skewed way of looking at things. I suppose by your standards, Texas and New Mexico were taken away from Mexico by a handful of farmers and handed to the US to become states, the military had nothing to do with it?
-
LOL!
Go get 'em Star. ;)
Just because you don't happen to like the way it happened doesn't change how it happened. Sometimes, the ends just don't justify means. The way to actually LEARN from history and perhaps avoid repeating it is to understand what REALLY happened and why... and that's not always easy since the folks that came out on top usually write the history.
-
I say the way they did it was most certainly a whim...if not less than that..an afterthought maybe. And 150 sailors is the same as a 150 marines...what? You thought they landed tanks or something? Had Harrier back-up? LOL 1 ship + 150 sailors = Hawaii as a vacation state...for-ever. Like it or not - right or wrong.
It is a state now yes. Whether it remains so forever is a topic still being debated today. And gaining support. The ONLY reason Hawaii is still a US state is because of it's strategic importance to the US military and our national defense.
Whether it remains so?? My god man you have got a rude awakening in front of you, you're living in a dreamworld. Hawaii is & always will be a state, the south fought & lost a war over that very issue & you think the mighty hawaiians are just gonna up & tell the federal govt. "no thanks"? Ain't gunna hapn capn.
-
is it time to deploy the 101st Fighting Keyboardists???
-
i have an entrenching tool i use as an antenna tuner....
-
Originally posted by StarOfAfrica2
It wasnt done on a whim, it was pre-planned for months and....
Department of redundancy department, division of pet peeves division.
Since planning is thinking about what you are going to do, pre-lanning must be whatever you do before you begin planning.
A local mortuary has a radio commercial that encourages people to call them to confer and "pre-plan" their final arrangements.
I have had a hankerin' to call them and tell them I am constantly pre-planning as I never think about it, so why should I have to confer with them to continue not thinking about it.
I guess that's not as bad as the local company that advertises "insect screening screens".
-
redundancy is an airbag in feinstens limo.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
I say the way they did it was most certainly a whim...if not less than that..an afterthought maybe. And 150 sailors is the same as a 150 marines...what? You thought they landed tanks or something? Had Harrier back-up? LOL 1 ship + 150 sailors = Hawaii as a vacation state...for-ever. Like it or not - right or wrong.
Whether it remains so?? My god man you have got a rude awakening in front of you, you're living in a dreamworld. Hawaii is & always will be a state, the south fought & lost a war over that very issue & you think the mighty hawaiians are just gonna up & tell the federal govt. "no thanks"? Ain't gunna hapn capn.
Tell you what bud. You walk into a bar full of Marines and call them "sailor". That should be fun. For the Marines. For a few minutes anyway.
"Sailors" are chauffers that drop the Marines off when they reach their destination. "Marines" kill people. See the difference there? Marines dont need tanks or harriers to do their job. Just icing on the cake.
You make it sound like a couple of ships were in port, the sailors went on a drunken riot and took over the island playing King of the Hill. Nice fantasy.
Now, as to the rest. First of all, the US government has OFFICIALLY recognized the travesty that happened here in 1894. An official apology was issued. Every time it is introduced, the Akaka bill gains more support. Eventually its going to pass, and native Hawaiians will be granted the same status as native American Indian tribes. From there its only a short jump to having land set aside ala reservations, and from there another short jump to regaining control of the islands. Again, the only thing that prevents the US from just giving the islands back and burying the whole thing is the strategic importance of their location. Hawaii was a sovreign nation, not some empty space. You want precedent? Look at the Philippines.
Your arguments about the Civil War hold no water. Hawaii hasnt revolted or attempted secession. Nor do they need to. Actually, truth be told, most Hawaiians dont mind being Americans. What they mind is they werent given a choice. Their "status" has been dictated to them for over 100 years by owners of American corporations and the US military. They cant say "no thanks" because they never asked for statehood in the first place. The vote wasnt exactly unanimous, nor was it Hawaiians who voted it in.
Show us some more of your ignorance, please.
-
The marine Corps is but one department of the Navy.
The Men's department that is.
-
"Sailors" are chauffers that drop the Marines off when they reach their destination. "Marines" kill people
I'm sure a navy specwar operator would love to set you straight on a couple of the finer points too.
Now, as to the rest. First of all, the US government has OFFICIALLY recognized the travesty that happened here in 1894. An official apology was issued. Every time it is introduced, the Akaka bill gains more support. Eventually its going to pass, and native Hawaiians will be granted the same status as native American Indian tribes. From there its only a short jump to having land set aside ala reservations, and from there another short jump to regaining control of the islands. Again, the only thing that prevents the US from just giving the islands back and burying the whole thing is the strategic importance of their location. Hawaii was a sovreign nation, not some empty space. You want precedent? Look at the Philippines. Show us some more of your ignorance, please.
I think you summed up about all the *duh* I can handle.
By the way, the phillipines were never a state & the Native Americans never secceded from the Union, my god...public schools are ruining this country. Go ahead & vote all you want, Hawaii is never leaving the union - period, get used to it.
-
Originally posted by Brenjen
Can I source what? The president of the United States exact words that repeated over & over in pulic in front of cameras that U.S. troops could be required in Iraq for as long as 10 years? Not without looking up the links, if it bothers you, you look it up. It is no state secret.
Brenjen, it's not my responsibility to back up your statements with proof. Either you can support your statements or you can't. That being said, I did look for a statement from the Bush Administration from before the invasion stating the the occupation could take up to 10 years and couldn't find anything.
Post invasion CIA report? The Iraqi Survey Group was an international 1,200 person group, not a CIA operation per se,
"This report relays the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction."
http://www.cia.gov/cia/reports/iraq_wmd_2004/
& from what I have read in the very link you gave, they did hide their activities & the report does not mention the sattelite imagry of the truck convoys leaving Iraq & entering Syria & Iran which was also shown on news outlets over & over again...again I say, if you want the proof, look it up yourself.
The ISG concluded that the WMD were destroyed years before the truck convoys, that were photographed shortly before the invasion, started.
Wouldn't you call that splitting hairs since the "security council" is ap art of the U.N.?
Perhaps. The point I was trying to make is it's not a nebulous UN that put the "no fly zones" on the table, but that the US and Britain that decided to do it of thier own volition, and heck didn't even put the "no fly zones" on any UN table.
No perhaps not too it. If we win a war & the enemy signs a cease fire & then violates it, we can do whatever we want up to & including carrying on with hostilities.
I disagree. The US, Britain and the rest of the Gulf War collation where acting as agents of the Security Council and acting under it's authority. The ceasefire was an agreement between Iraq and the Security Council. Not between Iraq and any independant acting nation that had the authority to determine if there was a breach of the ceasefire, nor what was the appropriate response to any such breach.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
well..the russian way of liberation has a twist to it...and u`ve never even been on the recieving end of it
Really?
What was so wrong or twisted with, for example, liberation of Bulgaria? I hope you know what I am speaking about. What was so wrong about Russian occupation of France that last for 4 years?
Soviet propaganda always spoke about "liberation", but you have to admit that Soviet Union didn't do anything like 11 invasions to Panama (or creating the state of Panama itself), invasion to Grenada, terrorist bombings of Yugoslavia or aggression in Vietnam. And it definetly could do anything compared to invading and occupying Iraq.
As for being on recieving end of "liberation" - we have been at least twice in last 100 years. Second time it really got out of hand, so we had to fix some things, including saving one nation from being sompletely destroyed.
That's why we are so hmmm pessimistic about "liberation" by foreign military force, especially when the "liberated" country isn't liberated from foreign occupation. Let's use less politically correct terms and say that now Iraqi resistance fights for liberating their own country from occupants.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Really?
What was so wrong or twisted with, for example, liberation of Bulgaria? I hope you know what I am speaking about. What was so wrong about Russian occupation of France that last for 4 years?
Soviet propaganda always spoke about "liberation", but you have to admit that Soviet Union didn't do anything like 11 invasions to Panama Poland 1919-23, Czechoslovakia 1968(or creating the state of Panama itself), invasion to Grenada, Hungary 1954, Poland 1939, Finland 1939terrorist bombings of Yugoslavia or aggression in VietnamAfganistan 1979 And it definetly could do anything compared to invading and occupying Iraq.
Clean as the wind driven snow.
Forgot to mention Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia... my bad
-
The war of soviet aggression in Afganistan was by far the most brutal and savagely resisted foreign invasion in the last half of the 20th century, and the 2nd mightiest military on planet earth was savagely defeated on the battlefield by cave dwelling primates. Its a fact, jack.
-
McGroin has he`s dates mixed up a little, but just about what my reply would have been.
Eastern Europe still suffers from the russian liberation. To fix up the damage of 40 years of madness ain`t easy.
BTW Boroda..did u ever upload that "Come and see" film?
I`d like to see it.
-
Originally posted by Timofei
A few thousand bodybags makes the American public understand and think the realities. It seems that it has to be reminded every for every 10..15 years, though. Short memory unfortunately. Korea, Vietnam, Gulf war, Iraq, Iran ?
And the war(s) goes on...money and oil...
Lemme get this straight.... you think the US invaded KOREA for money and/or oil?
You might just want to check a history book on the Korean war before you "enlighten" us any more.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Clean as the wind driven snow.
Forgot to mention Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia... my bad
...and yah missed the first two tries for Finland. The one place they just never seemed to be able to 'liberate'. ;)
-
Thrawn; I am not going to waste hours of research on finding the clips of President Bush stating that the occupation of Iraq could take ten years. He actually went so far in one speech as to bring up the number twenty. I am sure there are other people here who heard his speeches & remember his words it doesn't matter to me if you believe me or not, your a canadian, your opinion of American foriegn affairs doesn't matter at all. As a matter of fact, your country declined to help us, so keep your nose in your own countries business.
"This report relays the findings of the Special Advisor to the Director of Central Intelligence on Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction."
If one link you post doesn't work, try another huh?
I do not care in the least if you agree with the fact that my country (or yours if it had the balls to stand up for itself) can commence hostilities against any country on earth that poses a threat to even one of our citizens. I don't care who it is, if they threaten to harm or harm an American citizen, they bought the whole can of whoop a**!
Iraq was a threat, the palestinians are a threat, the Syrians, the Iranians, the Koreans, & the Chinese are pushing it with their weapons sales & the help they give the nations that want to see our demise, rest assured my boy, Canada will not be left out of any "kill the west" success story. I support war to secure my countries position in this world, I am sick of giving food & aid to countries on monday & having them drag our citizens through the streets dead on friday. As you can see I am a Hawk not a dove.
All you terrorsits out there, Canada said allah sucks, I heard 'em!:D
-
Actually, Brenjen; just because they've managed to not make the same stupid foriegn policy blunders we've managed doesent mean they ain't good neighbors... or that we 'needed' their help to get in this jam in the first place.
Further, they've had an election since the war, ousted their liberal government and installed a pretty decent guy in the P.M.'s chair. AND they are an armed ally in Afganistan... an operation they've been in from the first and they've lost some of their troops to our stupidity..
... a little respect for our friends up north might be in order.
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
Actually, Brenjen; just because they've managed to not make the same stupid foriegn policy blunders we've managed doesent mean they ain't good neighbors... or that we 'needed' their help to get in this jam in the first place.
Further, they've had an election since the war, ousted their liberal government and installed a pretty decent guy in the P.M.'s chair. AND they are an armed ally in Afganistan... an operation they've been in from the first and they've lost some of their troops to our stupidity..
... a little respect for our friends up north might be in order.
Leave me alone; I'm drinking. :p
Seriously? I do not have anything against Canada, I was raised to believe they were our best friend & the best one we will ever have.
But everywhere I go, I see my country bashed by Canadians, even my Canadian friends & I'm getting tired of it. Yes they are in Afghanistan, yes they lost a couple guys to friendly fire, I hate it that it happened.
If CANADA had been the target of the terrorists & they had suffered all that we have & I am not just talking about the last attacks, I am reffering to every embassy bombing & the barracks in beruit & Leon Klinghoffer getting shot & rolled into the ocean...I can go on & on & on; they would be screaming for vengeance! People have short memories, they don't even seem to remember the world trade center had been bombed BEFORE & by MUSLIMS.
Where is the Thanks for all the good we have attempted to do? Where is the gratitude? I gaurantee you if it had happened to Canada, the U.S.A would be in there swinging on their side, even if they had their hands full somewhere else & couldn't go in; The United States of America would go in ALONE to help them. If only to plant the Canadian flag in the rubble & say "to you, from them"
I say the Canadians who spout trash about us in the media & on the internet owe us, the people of the United States an apology. If they want me, as a U.S. citizen, not to view them as something other than a friend, just keep it up, it's a two way street.
-
We don't fight for 'thanks'.
we never did.
we don't need 'apologies', or respect.
we do what we do because if we didn't our friends would die alone.
-
I Love Canada :D They have cute babes!
-
Originally posted by Hangtime
We don't fight for 'thanks'.
we never did.
we don't need 'apologies', or respect.
we do what we do because if we didn't our friends would die alone.
YOU might not need apologies or respect but I think it would be nice once in a while myself. Friends? Ha...I'm begining to wonder about that.
Edit: I also think it's really neat "O" the way all your sentences start with WE. It's like some messed up Haiku
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Clean as the wind driven snow.
Forgot to mention Lithuania, Estonia, and Latvia... my bad
Again: they were allowed to join the Union after a complete democratic procedure. Do you have anything against democracy?
Just compare it to how US seized Texas from Mexico.
Next, please.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
McGroin has he`s dates mixed up a little, but just about what my reply would have been.
Eastern Europe still suffers from the russian liberation. To fix up the damage of 40 years of madness ain`t easy.
Damage? Hmm. I don't think so. In fact we sponsored them, that allowed a much higher standard of living there then in USSR.
Or maybe we should better restore Soviet borders and leave them to be killed by nazis?
Also please note that it was "blue" side that started installing puppet regimes in euorpe and began the division of Germany and Korea.
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
BTW Boroda..did u ever upload that "Come and see" film?
I`d like to see it.
Check PM. I hope you'll help me share it, my channel will be unable to handle everyone DLing at the same time.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Again: they were allowed to join the Union after a complete democratic procedure. Do you have anything against democracy?
Just compare it to how US seized Texas from Mexico.
Next, please.
Let's see... 10 years after Texas defeated Santa Anna and achieved independance from Mexico, they were allowed to join the Union after a complete democratic procedure. Do you have anything against democracy?
1939 In August, Hitler and Stalin carve up Europe, with the Baltics in the Soviet sphere. U.S.S.R. occupies Lithuania; mass deportations to Siberia begin. Moscow hands Vilnius back to Lithuania.
1941 Nazis occupy Lithuania. Most of Lithuania’s 240,000 Jews are killed.
1944 Soviets occupy Lithuania again. Over 500,000 Lithuanians are either deported, forced into exile, jailed or shot.
Soviet democracy in action
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Let's see... after a war, they (Texas) were allowed to join the Union after a complete democratic procedure. Do you have anything against democracy?
1939 In August, Hitler and Stalin carve up Europe, with the Baltics in the Soviet sphere. U.S.S.R. occupies Lithuania; mass deportations to Siberia begin. Moscow hands Vilnius back to Lithuania.
1941 Nazis occupy Lithuania. Most of Lithuania’s 240,000 Jews are killed.
1944 Soviets occupy Lithuania again. Over 500,000 Lithuanians are either deported, forced into exile, jailed or shot.
Soviet democracy in action
1939: do you seriously think USSR had to give up Pribaltika to nazis? Like June 22nd and nazi tanks 40km from Leningrad? "Mass deportations to Siberia" were several hundreed people openly opposing Soviet Power.
1944: your number of victims is at least 100 times bigger then it really was. In fact Soviets "purged" military criminals. And many of them are still alive, including SS "veterans", I mean in Latvia and Estonia. In Lithuania nazis never got such a support as in other Baltic "states".
-
Originally posted by Boroda
1939: do you seriously think USSR had to give up Pribaltika to nazis? Like June 22nd and nazi tanks 40km from Leningrad? "Mass deportations to Siberia" were several hundreed people openly opposing Soviet Power.
1944: your number of victims is at least 100 times bigger then it really was. In fact Soviets "purged" military criminals. And many of them are still alive, including SS "veterans", I mean in Latvia and Estonia. In Lithuania nazis never got such a support as in other Baltic "states".
1939: June 22nd 1941 did not take place in 1939
I have to agree with you on one point. Lithuanians openly opposing the power of a foreign government were indeed evil and worthy of deportation to Kolyma or outright execution. I mean how dare they.
-
Boroda..thanks for the film..it`s coming at a decent rate..maybe should be put on bittorrent...
About the other stuff:
I was born and raised in Hungary. I know what it was like, not like the rest of the american and western european crowd here on the board.
Russia up to this day owes money for all the goods that were just taken and never payed for. I just read not long ago that a recent visit of Putin, as a sign of good gesture the russians returned a whole library worth loads of money. And there`s lot more that was taken(stolen) as war booty. Men were randomly taken to "malenykiy robot" (a little labor) to siberia, as a way of war reparations.
Than all these countries were forced into communism and damned to fall way behind the rest of Europe...mostly in quality of life. People were restricted in travel..and i could go on and on.
And when the people of these countries decided that they had enough of the soviet model....we all know what happened.
nuff said
-
Originally posted by Dago
Funny, I lived in the Middle East and that was never a bad sign there, it was just the same as it is here.
Sounds like a bunch of BS.
At least in Iran, Iraq and Turkey the thumbs-up sign is a symbol for an obscene homosexual insult.
Make an experiment by testing it, when you are next time there - if it is really BS then nothing bad will happen.
But I wouldnt recommend it.
@Ripsnort
In the early phase of the Bagdad-occupation german TV showed pictures of US-soldiers driving through Bagdad making the thumbs-up-sign to show the people at the street that everything is OK - and some of them also showed the thumbs-up sign but not with happy but angry faces.
Later the german reporter asked some of these people why they had such a strange behavior and they answered that the sign is an insult.
-
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Boroda..thanks for the film..it`s coming at a decent rate..maybe should be put on bittorrent...
There are two torrents, 1.33Gb each, I only don't know if they have English soundracks. Frankly speaking - I lost the CDs I had, so I DLed the film again from Edonkey.
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
About the other stuff:
I was born and raised in Hungary. I know what it was like, not like the rest of the american and western european crowd here on the board.
Russia up to this day owes money for all the goods that were just taken and never payed for. I just read not long ago that a recent visit of Putin, as a sign of good gesture the russians returned a whole library worth loads of money.
Goods that were taken and never payed for? I find it funny. Hungary was a nazi ally, Magyar troops fought against USSR, so they share responsiblity for nazi crimes. BTW, Magyars were feared much more then Germans. Do you think that after they took part in destroying our country and killing millions they don't owe anything after they got their bottoms kicked together with their masters?
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
And there`s lot more that was taken(stolen) as war booty. Men were randomly taken to "malenykiy robot" (a little labor) to siberia, as a way of war reparations.
Maybe you mean POWs who worked on restoration in USSR? My Father had a practice job in 1947, construction supervisor in Leningrad (he was a Navy engineering cadet), and he had German, Romanian and Hungarian POW workers.
Originally posted by ~Caligula~
Than all these countries were forced into communism and damned to fall way behind the rest of Europe...mostly in quality of life. People were restricted in travel..and i could go on and on. And when the people of these countries decided that they had enough of the soviet model....we all know what happened.
nuff said
Forced into communism?! How long old Horti's administration lasted in Hungary? Until 1947 IIRC?
After "blue" side started to istall puppet governments in Western Europe in 1948 - in Soviet occupation zones there were elections too, and it wasn't less "democratic" then in, for example, Italy, where Communists were not allowed to take part in elections.
Restriction on travel? LOL! Did you see that Hungarian films like "Don't panic, major Kardash" or "Pagan Madonna"? They had foreign currency in open circulation! For a Russian - 99% of all that "horrors of communism" in Eastern Europe are a pure nonsence. BTW, how many political parties did they have in East Germany?
If only Soviet Union could do 1/3 of what occupation forces did in Russia, Belorussia and Ukraine to "occupied" Eastern Europe and Germany - then Hungarian language could be studied now as Latin or ancient Greek, a language with no native speakers.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
1939: June 22nd 1941 did not take place in 1939
First of all, JFYI, in 1939 Baltic "states" signed military assistance treaties with USSR. They were allowed to join USSR in 1940.
Even after a non-aggression treaty with Germany was signed, it still was obvious for everyone that the war is inevitable and it will start sooner or later. USSR was literally forced into a non-aggression treaty by Western "allies" during the negotiations in Moscow in Aug. 1939.
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
I have to agree with you on one point. Lithuanians openly opposing the power of a foreign government were indeed evil and worthy of deportation to Kolyma or outright execution. I mean how dare they.
IIRC 2500 Lithuanians were punished in 1940-41. And there was no "foreign government" istalled, you probably don't know anything about how USSR worked. Republics had much more independance then states in the US, had their own official languages, governments, etc, their local cultures were sponsored from Union budget, and their standards of living were significantly higher then in Russian SFSR. That's why they are so deep in the arse since 1991. We simply stopped working for them.
Only two examples, Latvian Infantry Corps and Hungarian "internationalists" like Bela Kun and his slaughter in Crimea 1920 makes it obvious that Russia didn't occupy their countries, it were them who occupied Russia.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
Maybe you mean POWs who worked on restoration in USSR? My Father had a practice job in 1947, construction supervisor in Leningrad (he was a Navy engineering cadet), and he had German, Romanian and Hungarian POW workers.
That's nice. POW "workers". Why were they being held after the war?
-
One thing I have learned from Boroda, there is no truth in the west.
-
Originally posted by Mr Big
That's nice. POW "workers". Why were they being held after the war?
Do you seriously think that they had to be released immediately on May 9th?
JFYI, US held over 100,000 ethnic Japanese, including US citizens, in "internment camps" in 1941-45. Compare it to the number of Latvians, Lithuanians and Estonians who were "sent to Siberia" in 1940. (Those who were sentenced in 1944 are a different issue, they collaborated with nazis and committed military crimes). USSR also had a problem of ethnic Germans, but German colonists from Ukraine and Volga weren't sent to prison camps, they were deported to Kazakhstan, same steppes, and it was done only after colonists in the Ukraine started to shoot Soveit soldiers in the back.
Both "blue" and "red" sides were not angels, but only if you don't compare them to "brown" side.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
One thing I have learned from Boroda, there is no truth in the west.
As usual you didn't understand the complete meaning of what i said. There is no truth in the north, south or east too.
-
Originally posted by Boroda
As usual you didn't understand the complete meaning of what i said. There is no truth in the north, south or east too.
So we agree, there in no truth in all of Russia, no matter which area of Russia you are in. :lol
Delusion seems to abound though.
-
Hope this does not bring the wrath of SCSI upon me, but this is the same conversation after all. (edit: "*****e" = "s h i i t e", not technically a naughty word)
===============================
Break Point: What Went Wrong
By George Friedman
On May 23, we published a Geopolitical Intelligence Report titled "Break Point." In that article, we wrote: "It is now nearly Memorial Day. The violence in Iraq will surge, but by July 4 there either will be clear signs that the Sunnis are controlling the insurgency -- or there won't. If they are controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. If they are not controlling the insurgency, the United States will begin withdrawing troops in earnest. Regardless of whether the [political settlement] holds, the U.S. war in Iraq is going to end: U.S. troops either will not be needed, or will not be useful. Thus, we are at a break point -- at least for the Americans."
In our view, the fundamental question was whether the Sunnis would buy into the political process in Iraq. We expected a sign, and we got it in June, when Abu Musab al-Zarqawi was killed -- in our view, through intelligence provided by the Sunni leadership. The same night al-Zarqawi was killed, the Iraqis announced the completion of the Cabinet: As part of a deal that finalized the three security positions (defense, interior and national security), the defense ministry went to a Sunni. The United States followed that move by announcing a drawdown of U.S. forces from Iraq, starting with two brigades. All that was needed was a similar signal of buy-in from the Shia -- meaning they would place controls on the *****e militias that were attacking Sunnis. The break point seemed very much to favor a political resolution in Iraq.
It never happened. The Shia, instead of reciprocating the Sunni and American gestures, went into a deep internal crisis. *****e groups in Basra battled over oil fields. They fought in Baghdad. We expected that the mainstream militias under the Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) would gain control of the dissidents and then turn to political deal-making. Instead, the internal *****e struggle resolved itself in a way we did not expect: Rather than reciprocating with a meaningful political gesture, the Shia intensified their attacks on the Sunnis. The Sunnis, clearly expecting this phase to end, held back -- and then cut loose with their own retaliations. The result was, rather than a political settlement, civil war. The break point had broken away from a resolution.
Part of the explanation is undoubtedly to be found in Iraq itself. The prospect of a centralized government, even if dominated by the majority Shia, does not seem to have been as attractive to Iraqi Shia as absolute regional control, which would guarantee them all of the revenues from the southern oil fields, rather than just most. That is why SCIRI leader Abdel Aziz al-Hakim has been pushing for the creation of a federal zone in the south, similar to that established for the Kurdistan region in the north. The growing closeness between the United States and some Sunnis undoubtedly left the Shia feeling uneasy. The Sunnis may have made a down payment by delivering up al-Zarqawi, but it was far from clear that they would be in a position to make further payments. The Shia reciprocated partially by offering an amnesty for militants, but they also linked the dissolution of sectarian militias to the future role of Baathists in the government, which they seek to prevent. Clearly, there were factions within the *****e community that were pulling in different directions.
But there was also another factor that appears to have been more decisive: Iran. It is apparent that Iran not only made a decision not to support a political settlement in Iraq, but a broader decision to support Hezbollah in its war with Israel. In a larger sense, Iran decided to simultaneously confront the United States and its ally Israel on multiple fronts -- and to use that as a means of challenging Sunnis and, particularly, Sunni Arab states.
The Iranian Logic
This is actually a significant shift in Iran's national strategy. Iran had been relatively cooperative with the United States between 2001 and 2004 -- supporting the United States in Afghanistan in a variety of ways and encouraging Washington to depose Saddam Hussein. This relationship was not without tensions during those years, but it was far from confrontational. Similarly, Iran had always had tensions with the Sunni world, but until last year or so, as we can see in Iraq, these had not been venomous.
Two key things have to be borne in mind to begin to understand this shift. First, until the emergence of al Qaeda, the Islamic Republic of Iran had seen itself -- and had been seen by others -- as being the vanguard of the Islamist renaissance. It was Iran that had confronted the United States, and it was Iran's creation, Hezbollah, that had pioneered suicide bombings, hostage-takings and the like in Lebanon and around the world. But on Sept. 11, 2001, al Qaeda -- a Sunni group -- had surged ahead of Iran as the embodiment of radical Islam. Indeed, it had left Iran in the role of appearing to be a collaborator with the United States. Iran had no use for al Qaeda but did not want to surrender its position to the Sunni entity.
The second factor that must be considered is Iran's goal in Iraq. The Iranians, who hated Hussein as a result of the eight-year war and dearly wanted him destroyed, had supported the U.S. invasion of Iraq. And they had helped the United States with intelligence prior to the war. Indeed, it could be argued that Iran had provided exactly the intelligence that would provoke the U.S. attack in a way most advantageous to Iran -- by indicating that the occupation of Iraq would not be as difficult as might be imagined, particularly if the United States destroyed the Baath Party and all of its institutions. U.S. leaders were hearing what they wanted to hear anyway, but Iran made certain they heard this much more clearly.
Iran had a simple goal: to dominate a post-war Iraq. Iran's *****e allies in Iraq comprised the majority, the Shia had not resisted the American invasion and the Iranians had provided appropriate support. Therefore, they expected that they would inherit Iraq -- at least in the sense that it would fall into Tehran's sphere of influence. For their part, the Americans thought they could impose a regime in Iraq regardless of Iran's wishes, and they had no desire to create an Iranian surrogate in Baghdad. Therefore, though they may have encouraged Iranian beliefs, the goal of the Americans was to create a coalition government that would include all factions. The Shia could be the dominant group, but they would not hold absolute power -- and, indeed, the United States manipulated Iraqi Shia to split them further.
We had believed that the Iranians would, in the end, accept a neutral Iraq with a coalition government that guaranteed Iran's interests. There is a chance that this might be true in the end, but the Iranians clearly decided to force a final confrontation with the United States. Tehran used its influence among some Iraqi groups to reject the Sunni overture symbolized in al-Zarqawi's death and to instead press forward with attacks against the Sunni community. It goes beyond this, inasmuch as Iran also has been forging closer ties with some Sunni groups, who are responding to Iranian money and a sense of the inevitability of Iran's ascent in the region.
Iran could have had two thoughts on its mind in pressing the sectarian offensive. The first was that the United States, lacking forces to contain a civil war, would be forced to withdraw, or at least to reduce its presence in populated areas, if a civil war broke out. This would leave the majority Shia in a position to impose their own government -- and, in fact, place pro-Iranian Shia, who had led the battle, in a dominant position among the *****e community.
---continued---
-
---continued---
The second thought could have been that even if U.S. forces did not withdraw, Iran would be better off with a partitioned Iraq -- in which the various regions were at war with each other, or at least focused on each other, and incapable of posing a strategic threat to Iran. Moreover, if partition meant that Iran dominated the southern part of Iraq, then the strategic route to the western littoral of the Persian Gulf would be wide open, with no Arab army in a position to resist the Iranians. Their dream of dominating the Persian Gulf would still be in reach, while the security of their western border would be guaranteed. So, if U.S. forces did not withdraw from Iraq, Iran would still be able not only to impose a penalty on the Americans but also to pursue its own strategic interests.
This line of thinking also extends to pressures that Iran now is exerting against Saudi Arabia, which has again become a key ally of the United States. For example, a member of the Iranian Majlis recently called for Muslim states to enact political and economic sanctions against Saudi Arabia -- which has condemned Hezbollah's actions in the war against Israel. In the larger scheme, it was apparent to the Iranians that they could not achieve their goals in Iraq without directly challenging Saudi interests -- and that meant mounting a general challenge to Sunnis. A partial challenge would make no sense: It would create hostility and conflict without a conclusive outcome. Thus, the Iranians decided to broaden their challenge.
The Significance of Hezbollah
Hezbollah is a *****e movement that was created by Iran out of its own needs for a Tehran-controlled, anti-Israel force. Hezbollah was extremely active through the 1980s and had exercised economic and political power in Lebanon in the 1990s, as a representative of *****e interests. In this, Hezbollah had collaborated with Syria -- a predominantly Sunni country run by a minority *****e sect, the Alawites -- as well as Iran. Iran and Syria are enormously different countries, with many different interests. Syria's interest was the domination and economic exploitation of Lebanon. But when the United States forced the Syrians out of Lebanon -- following the assassination of former Prime Minister Rafik al-Hariri in February 2005 -- any interest Syria had in restraining Hezbollah disappeared. Meanwhile, as Iran shifted its strategy, its interest in reactivating Hezbollah -- which had been somewhat dormant in relation to Israel -- increased.
Hezbollah's interest in being reactivated in this way was less clear. Hezbollah's leaders had aged well: Violent and radical in the 1980s, they had become Lebanese businessmen in the 1990s. They became part of the establishment. But they still were who they were, and the younger generation of Hezbollah members was even more radical. Hezbollah militants had been operating in southern Lebanon for years and, however relatively restrained they might have been, they clearly had prepared for conventional war against the Israelis.
With the current conflict, Hezbollah now has achieved an important milestone: It has fought better and longer than any other Arab army against Israel. The Egyptians and Syrians launched brilliant attacks in 1973, but their forces were shattered before the war ended. Hezbollah has fought and clearly has not been shattered. Whether, in the end, it wins or loses, Hezbollah will have achieved a massive improvement of its standing in the Muslim world by slugging it out with Israel in a conventional war. If, at the end of this war, Hezbollah remains intact as a fighting force -- regardless of the outcome of the campaign in southern Lebanon -- its prestige will be enormous.
Within the region, this outcome would shift focus way from the Sunni Hamas or secular Fatah to the *****e Hezbollah. If this happens simultaneously with the United States losing complete control of the situation in Iraq, the entire balance of power in the region would be perceived to have shifted away from the U.S.-Israeli coalition (the appearance is different from reality, but it is still far from trivial) -- and the leadership of the Islamist renaissance would have shifted away from the Sunnis to the Shia, at least in the Middle East.
Outcomes
It is not clear that the Iranians expected all of this to have gone quite as well as it has. In the early days of the war, when the Saudis and other Arabs were condemning Hezbollah and it appeared that Israel was going to launch one of its classic lightning campaigns in Lebanon, Tehran seemed to back away -- calling for a cease-fire and indicating it was prepared to negotiate on issues like uranium enrichment. Then international criticism shifted to Israel, and Israeli forces seemed bogged down. Iran's rhetoric shifted. Now the Saudis are back to condemning Hezbollah, and the Iranians appear more confident than ever. From their point of view, they have achieved substantial psychological success based on real military achievements. They have the United States on the defensive in Iraq, and the Israelis are having to fight hard to make any headway in Lebanon.
The Israelis have few options. They can continue to fight until they break Hezbollah -- a process that will be long and costly, but can be achieved. But they then risk Hezbollah shifting to guerrilla war unless their forces immediately withdraw from Lebanon. Alternatively, they can negotiate a cease-fire that inevitably would leave at least part of Hezbollah's forces intact, its prestige and power in Lebanon enhanced and Iran elevated as a power within the region and the Muslim world. Because the Israelis are not going anywhere, they have to choose from a limited menu.
The United States, on the other hand, is facing a situation in Iraq that has broken decisively against it. However hopeful the situation might have been the night al-Zarqawi died, the decision by Iran's allies in Iraq to pursue civil war rather than a coalition government has put the United States into a militarily untenable position. It does not have sufficient forces to prevent a civil war. It can undertake the defense of the Sunnis, but only at the cost of further polarization with the Shia. The United States' military options are severely limited, and therefore, withdrawal becomes even more difficult. The only possibility is a negotiated settlement -- and at this point, Iran doesn't need to negotiate. Unless Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, the top *****e cleric in Iraq, firmly demands a truce, the sectarian fighting will continue -- and at the moment, it is not even clear that al-Sistani could get a truce if he wanted one.
While the United States was focused on the chimera of an Iranian nuclear bomb -- a possibility that, assuming everything we have heard is true, remains years away from becoming reality -- Iran has moved to redefine the region. At the very least, civil war in Lebanon (where Christians and Sunnis might resist Hezbollah) could match civil war in Iraq, with the Israelis and Americans trapped in undesirable roles.
The break point has come and gone. The United States now must make an enormously difficult decision. If it simply withdraws forces from Iraq, it leaves the Arabian Peninsula open to Iran and loses all psychological advantage it gained with the invasion of Iraq. If American forces stay in Iraq, it will be as a purely symbolic gesture, without any hope for imposing a solution. If this were 2004, the United States might have the stomach for a massive infusion of forces -- an attempt to force a favorable resolution. But this is 2006, and the moment for that has passed. The United States now has no good choices; its best bet was blown up by Iran. Going to war with Iran is not an option. In Lebanon, we have just seen the value of air campaigns pursued in isolation, and the United States does not have a force capable of occupying and pacifying Iran.
As sometimes happens, obvious conclusions must be drawn.
Send questions or comments on this article to analysis@stratfor.com.