I use the word "Regimes" to distinguish between the citizens of a country and those who imagine they govern.
Regimes can react in defensive ways to criticism of their actions, pretending that such criticism is "anti the people" or "unpatriotic" or in fact any deflection from admitting that they themselves have become the subject of criticism or, even worse, ridicule.
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?
I nominate the UAE for not recognising humour and not understanding that heavy-handed actions on relatively harmless activities merely results in publicising the very thing they don't like.
See UAE court convicts eight over 'spoof documentary video' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25495256)
I nominate the UAE for not recognising humour
What is the UAE?
The Emirados Árabes Unidos. ;)
The Emirados Árabes Unidos.
Ahhhh, the EAU. String could have said it immediately... ;)
In Dutch it's the VAE (Verenigde Arabische Emiraten). :D
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?
Unfortunately and against my expectations I have to keep on pointing the same one.
Death on the US-Mexican border: the killings America chooses to ignore (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/death-on-the-usmexican-border-the-killings-america-chooses-to-ignore-9021110.html)
Since 2005, patrol agents and CBP officers have killed some 42 people along the US-Mexican border without facing any public consequences – or any large-scale media coverage
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?
There are any that wouldn't? :left:
Since 2005, patrol agents and CBP officers have killed some 42 people along the US-Mexican border without facing any public consequences – or any large-scale media coverage
"America" is a broad condemnation. Millions of us don't ignore them. As for the media, how do you think all of us in DnD know about them.
What are "public consequences"? Sadly, we'll have to wait for the next election cycle, 2014, to see political consequences. In 2016 there will be at least two Republican politicians who will be wooing Hispanic voters.
It's disgusting.
North Korea purge of leader's uncle sparks stability fears (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-25365773)
Sometimes it's difficult to know if the actions of so-called leaders are based on ideology, anger, delusions, all of the above, or it they were just plain drunk at the time.
Kim Jong-un 'very drunk' when he ordered execution of uncle's two aides (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10535033/Kim-Jong-un-very-drunk-when-he-ordered-execution-of-uncles-two-aides.html)
Also
'Hundreds' of Jang's relatives sent to gulags by North Korean regime (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/northkorea/10532294/Hundreds-of-Jangs-relatives-sent-to-gulags-by-North-Korean-regime.html)
It must be the festive season in North Korea.
The family that flays together stays together? Or doesn't.
I don't think that folks outside that asylum can decipher what's going on. The "news" we get from S. Korea and the NK "experts" is clouded with uncertainty and guesswork. Even China has increased its troop presence on NK's northern border.
The US has moved troops closer to NK. It bothers me that we're still the guarantor of S. Korean safety. I didn't think twice about Korean hostilities when I worked there, but I do now.
By contrast the Syrian situation looks mild.
Reverting to North Korea, it has been reported that Release the hounds! Kim Jong Un executed uncle by feeding him to pack of starving dogs (http://www.nydailynews.com/news/world/kim-jong-executed-uncle-feeding-pack-starving-dogs-article-1.1565299). If true Kim Jong Un could well remember the saying "What goes around comes around".
But one should be cautious about any news that comes from that particular asylum
Did North Korea's Kim Jong-un really kill his uncle with 120 starving dogs? (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/timstanley/100252705/did-north-koreas-kim-jong-un-kill-his-uncle-with-120-starving-dogs/)
But one should be cautious about any news that comes from that particular asylum
I agree. This is the same kind of reporting that gave Stalin a bad name.
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?
The Obama Regime.
The Obama Regime.
Or Mississippi in the medieval period...that would be last week.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bye.gif)
Regimes that can't take it.
Most of the Western world. We should look to ourselves before looking to others.
The Obama Regime.
Or Mississippi in the medieval period...that would be last week.
(https://www.smileyfaze.tk/slides/bye.gif)
Indeed; I agree that dear old Phillip's regime is deserving of some healthy introspection.
They are corrupt as a regime can be.
Which regimes do you think could benefit from.a bit of healthy introspection?
Nouri al-Maliki's regime could definitely use some introspection.
He is going to have to allow Sunni's a presence in the Iraqi Parliament in the even he wants the state of Iraq to continue to exist.
(I view the breakup of Iraq as inevitable.)
The Rahmulan Empire. Of course, the Obama Regime, which sprang initially from Baby Rich Daley's Empire before The Rahmfather came to power.
Downstate, of course we have the Madigans, who need all the investigation that "we the people" should be giving them, and of course the Quinn regime needs it.
That last one is kinda weird when you get down to it. In his early days, Pat Quinn made a name for himself as a pro-consumer gadfly, taking on the mighty utilities and making them subject to controls so the utilities can't raise rates whenever they want to. Now he's the governor, and he never saw a tax-hike he didn't like as governor.
(I view the breakup of Iraq as inevitable.)
I predicted the breakup of Iraq at the time the USA started the invasion.
Despite of all US lip service at that time and afterward, the breakup was/is intended.
Next candidate for a breakup in the region is Syria.
Indeed. These countries that were of colonial policy construction simply cannot function without a strong madman like SH.
Otherwise they crumble along religious/tribal lines.
Despite of all US lip service at that time and afterward, the breakup was/is intended.
Next candidate for a breakup in the region is Syria.
Net'N'Yahoo says it's in the plans, yes. (http://news.yahoo.com/netanyahu-calls-supporting-kurdish-independence-170706840.html)
An independent Kurdistan would concern Syria, Iraq, Iran, and Turkey. We'll see which country will be spared from this. Turkey probably.
Iraq should never have been invaded and neither should there be arm supplies into Syria where most of the rebels are foreign. They and others interfered with have usually ended up in a questionable state of affairs. Why there is this daft need to interfere in other countries on the grounds of the usual declarations when those pursuing against such regimes are hardly innocents themselves. Even in Europe not so long ago wasn;t Austria leaned on (and that is a democracy!) to change the Coalition government via a new election?
Dictatorships are usually accepted outside if they trade and go along with being allied against someone else the instigators don't like. Indeed right through the 20th century a whole list of dictatorships were supported and encouraged no matter what they did inside their borders. So the premise of whether they can "take it" or not is pointless.
Despite of all US lip service at that time and afterward, the breakup was/is intended.
What a cunning plan, Baldrick! Let's make our invasion a miserable failure, get our military caught in the quagmire for a decade, taking part of our economy with it, losing friends and influence everywhere, so that we can divide Iraq into three like Gaul, and nobody would think of pointing the finger of blame to us!
Oh, they are pointing the finger of blame to us anyway. Oh well, we can't win every time, can we?
Jax, are you implying that plans can't go horribly wrong? The Iraq drama has played out as you describe, but this doesn't mean the plan wasn't there. The plan looked gorgeous on paper ("their oil will pay for the war") but turned out differently. How do I know there was a plan? They implemented it, that's how. They actually went to war against Iraq!
Compare with Russia and Crimea. Putin says he didn't do anything at all. It just happened out of the blue that Crimea fell into Russia's lap. See, it was the Crimean people who wanted it and purely out of their own will transferred themselves to Russia. It's perfectly natural that Putin says this, because any other way he would look bad. If you think this makes sense, feel free to believe him. As for me, knowing some politics and politicians, it makes sense to believe that there was a plan of transfer in Putin's drawer waiting for the right moment to be implemented. When the opportunity came, they implemented the plan and got really lucky that it didn't cause a quagmire like Iraq for Americans.
What a cunning plan, Baldrick! Let's make our invasion a miserable failure, get our military caught in the quagmire for a decade, taking part of our economy with it, losing friends and influence everywhere, so that we can divide Iraq into three like Gaul, and nobody would think of pointing the finger of blame to us!
Was Vietnam a miserable failure?
BTW, what was the main reason for the invasion?
WoMD?
To inject democracy and American lifestyle in the region?
Take your pick, Jax :)
How can you weaken a country on the long term (destroying it's infrastructure is only a middle term damage)?
Jax, are you implying that plans can't go horribly wrong?
No, I am implying that it makes no sense to plan for a plan to go wrong, at least not plan for this plan to go wrong.
The US has been kind to Kurds with nationalist ambitions. First with the safe havens as a front against Saddam, and then by not betraying them when they had the country themselves. This was pragmatic. An official Kurdistan would cause all kinds of problems, but an unofficial rump Kurdistan has been shown to be practical. To this extent USA could be considered complicit in Kurdish autonomy, unless they have been counting on Kurdish capacity for quarreling.
A further division between the Sunni and Shia sectors is a signal of failure and weakness, not of a success of a cunning plan. The US could roll with a division as well, assuming the two parts would be reasonably friendly with the US and not too friendly with whatever list of enemies that would be in fashion. It would still be a less attractive alternative than a single country (with reasonably autonomous Kurds), where there wouldn't be too much of a worry of excessive chumminess with Iran.
Jax, are you implying that plans can't go horribly wrong?
No, I am implying that it makes no sense to plan for a plan to go wrong, at least not plan for this plan to go wrong.
Maybe there's a simple explanation, such as: They didn't plan for the plan to go wrong. They planned for the plan to go perfectly according to the plan, but then the plan took and played a trick on them and went wrong of its own accord. That's one heckuva mischievous plan.
As plans often do, thus invalidating Krake's original claim.
It's well known that the very best battle-plan is obsolete 5 minutes after the battle has started.
I was fascinated by RJH's stuff about American meddling possibly causing Iraq to break up into three-- or perhaps more-- separate entities. What fascinates me about it is that I seem to recall reading that British meddling is the reason Iraq is one nation to begin with. I guess it all depends on who is doing the meddling whether the results are good or bad.
Maybe you read something different into Krake's claim than I do. Or we read the same thing into it in a different way.
The breakup of Iraq seems to be the current plan, but in the beginning of the invasion there was a different plan, namely to make Iraq endure freedom from oil and greet Americans as liberators. Totally unexpectedly, this sincere well-meant plan played tricks on the planners. And then plans change.
It's Americans we are talking about. They think in scenarios. The scenario of next nation-building - independent Kurdistan - is already in the press. From the point of view of at least four countries in the area, this means a threat of substantial loss of territory.
Maybe you read something different into Krake's claim than I do. Or we read the same thing into it in a different way.
The breakup of Iraq seems t
o be the current plan, but in the beginning of the invasion there was a different plan, namely to make Iraq endure freedom from oil and greet Americans as liberators. Totally unexpectedly, this sincere well-meant plan played tricks on the planners. And then plans change.
We read the same thing.
Trouble is that when the US decides to find a damn excuse to invade anywhere they never think of the aftermath as we well know.
Trouble is that when the US decides to find a damn excuse to invade anywhere they never think of the aftermath as we well know.
You can say many things about the USA, good or bad. The only thing you can't, is that they are stupid.
Of course they think of the aftermath but there are priorities for US interests. Those interests don't have to overlap with interests of other countries, not even with those of its closest allies. That's how a superpower (the only one a.t.m) acts.
Do you remember Saddam threatening to abolish petrodollars for his oil? That was his death penalty :chef:
You can say many things about the USA, good or bad. The only thing you can't, is that they are stupid.
That's not funny. :right:
Unfortunately krake that is a wee bit of baloney and stupid is part of the equation as the country most certainly does not concern about the aftermath. Indeed some of your own politicians with more sense have admitted so. Each time the US uses some silly excuse to attack or invade someone it doesn't car about afterwards. Well maybe it does if it can get it's money men in and business but we have seen from modern history the standard mess-ups.
Regarding the thread title that is another misnomer as dictatorships can take it if of course left alone (!) and we get the complete political nonsense from White House livers about freedom and democracy. Yet the same America has had a very long association of actually supporting dictatorships in South America and the Middle East because they make money out of them so hypocrisy has become a standard practice. I do feel sorry for the intelligent ex-colonists who are stuck with a morally corrupt political system and an increasing intolerance of government on the rights of the individual citizen. You might as well throw the constitution away becaus ethe government ignores it when it suits.
Sadly the nation is stuttering on the edge of potential financial collapse and that will bring an end to it's terrible determination to be the world's string pullers. When it does happen one cannot but feel sorry for the millions of ordinary people who have had their loyalty and faith in the country stolen and been brained by propaganda. The shock will hurt them more than the Wall Streeters who really run the place. If some countries happen to be dictatorships that is up to them and what they do about it as the two-faced attitude by the politicians is unreal. Even after the initial Russian Revolution in 1917 in the following year when the Civil War broke out between the Whites and Reds the US, Britain, Japan, had troops there although didn't get involved directly. At the same time behind the scenes the British, Japanese, etc didn't realise that at the same time the US corporates were dealing secretly with the Communists! Ex-Colonists have a lot to learn yet!
If the US was to ever become a dictatorshp itself just put it down to extended patriotism as it covers many a sin! :yikes:
(https://dndsanctuary.eu/imagecache.php?image=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.yle.fi%2Fuutiset%2Fulkomaat%2Farticle7360799.ece%2FALTERNATES%2Fw580%2F17.7.1024%2Bgaza%2Bpommi%2Btwitter%2Bisraelilaiset%2Bkatsomassa%2Bpommeja%2Bisrael%2Bpalestiina%2BAllan%2BS%25C3%25B8rensen&hash=34cc1b1b427f329ec2523d4c08e4c671" rel="cached" data-hash="34cc1b1b427f329ec2523d4c08e4c671" data-warn="External image, click here to view original" data-url="http://img.yle.fi/uutiset/ulkomaat/article7360799.ece/ALTERNATES/w580/17.7.1024+gaza+pommi+twitter+israelilaiset+katsomassa+pommeja+israel+palestiina+Allan+S%C3%B8rensen)
That openair cinema needs badly some improvements so people can really enjoy the show.
- I miss some snack bars offering the audience burgers and Coca-Cola. (BTW, McDonald's and Coca-Cola could also help sponsoring the show)
- I'm also missing a trader offering infrared field glasses for rent. It would make a win-win situation for both, the trader and the audience.
This sort of scurrilous thing makes me wish that the Isreali Zionists had lost the six day war.
“The countries that were formerly colonized may not necessarily care for the advice of the former colonies. Certainly in Latvia, we can understand this,” he said during a video interview from Riga. During a recent EU summit with Latin American countries “I realised that, actually, their perception of Europe was often a little bit like the Baltics’ perception of Russia,” [Latvian Prime Minister Krišjānis Kariņš] said.
In the same vein, Kariņš also compared the view that former French colonies can have of Paris, to the perception Latvians have of Moscow. “I suppose to … an old French colony, those people listening to what the French president has to say, may seem similar to a Latvian listening to what Putin has to say,” he argued.
He dared to say the silent part out loud. Well, of course, because he is resigning.
He does not imply it directly, but the remaining silent part that our Western colleagues need to hear is that Western behaviour bears colonial hallmarks to this day despite pretensions to the contrary. Or actually he implies that too.
What will they reply? At best probably something like "Ces pays ont perdu une bonne occasion de se taire" à la Chirac. More likely they will pretend it was never said and never heard.