Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Regimes that can't take it. (Read 11610 times)

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #25 –
Quote from: jax on


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)?

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #26 –
Quote from: ersi on

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.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #27 –
Quote from: jax on

Quote from: ersi on

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.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #28 –
As plans often do, thus invalidating Krake's original claim.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #29 –
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.
What would happen if a large asteroid slammed into the Earth?
According to several tests involving a watermelon and a large hammer, it would be really bad!

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #30 –
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.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #31 –
Quote from: ersi on

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.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #32 –
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.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #33 –
Quote from: rjhowie on

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:

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #35 –
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:
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #36 –

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #37 –
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.

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #38 –
This sort of scurrilous thing makes me wish that the Isreali Zionists had lost the six day war.
"Quit you like men:be strong"

Re: Regimes that can't take it.

Reply #39 –
Quote from: https://www.politico.eu/article/latvia-krisjanis-karins-eu-latin-americapm-let-eu-countries-with-no-colonial-past-lead-diplomacy-with-brics/
“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.