Re: Russian losses in Chechenya for 2003

[Dav1936531]

>From: Hobo
>
>
>Of course the biggest difference between Iraq and Chechnya is that the
>US only cares about Iraqi oil, the Petukhovs went in to restore human
>rights.

Casualty numbers aside, they are fighting the same ilk of religious jihadis
that pulled the 9-11 job. Al-Qaeda sent many of its trainees to Chechnya. The
same sort that strapped explosives to women and hijacked an entire theater full
of people recently.

Dead AQ guys, wherever they are killed, means less of them running around
creating trouble...no matter when, how, why, or by whom they are killed.

The Russians certainly have a right to defend themselves from and respond to
terror attacks instigated by the AQ cells working to create instability in
Chechnya.
Dave

[Yama]

"Dav1936531" > wrote in message
...
> Dead AQ guys, wherever they are killed, means less of them running around
> creating trouble...no matter when, how, why, or by whom they are killed.
>
> The Russians certainly have a right to defend themselves from and respond
to
> terror attacks instigated by the AQ cells working to create instability in
> Chechnya.

It is truly hilarious that "genocidal war against Chechnyans" has now become
"righteous self-defence against terrorist attacks".

Oh wait, it's not hilarious, it's sad.

[tadaa]

> :Turkey is strongly against it, because they have problem with kurds who
> :want to take part of Turkey for that kurdish state. And I think there
were
> :promises made that no kurdish state would be made.
>
> And there were promises made about US forces transiting through
> Turkey. One broken promise deserves another.

A huge majority of turks were against it and to everyone's surprise the
representatives voted that transit down. Usually their security council
overrides votes they don't like.

> :> Create a Shia state in the south. They will have oil and much farmland.
> :
> :Current Shiia clergy makes Iran look like a ally of USA.
> :Most propably sunni muslim states wouldn't like another shiia muslim
state
> :besides Iran at all.
>
> Then you're not going to have democracy, since the overwhelming
> majority of the people in that region (and in Iraq generally, if you
> keep it together) are Shiia Muslim.

Democracy in Iraq is on kinda shaky ground anyways, specially after that
moderate Shiia leader died in a bombstrike.
For kurds the democracy might work and actually for sunnis too if they get
over the loss of their position as the leader of Iraq. But that is not
enough if the majority (Shiias) vote for Islamic republic.

Democracy doesn't fit for people who believe in fairy tales it seems.

> :And what if the result is 1 country in conflict with Turkey, 1 country in
> :conflict with all the other muslim countries besides Iran and 1 that is
just
> :bitter for all the power it lost?
>
> As opposed to some 'power sharing' balancing act like those which were
> attempted in Cyprus (Greeks/Turks) and Lebanon (Christian/Moslem).
> We've seen how well those work.

One way or another it isn't going to be easy.

[Keith Willshaw]

"kirill" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> assurancetourix wrote:
> >
>
> > Bush is smarter than I thought; he seems to have adopt the second
> > solution recently, any protest from Sistani are taken seriously by the
> > US authorities.
>
> The Iraqi Shiites are aligned with the Iranian ones so I don't see them
being
> willing clients to Uncle $am.

In fact the Iraqi Shia's are being generally quite well behaved and
the Iranians have so far largely refrained from causing trouble. The
few attacks and bomb explosions in Shia sections of Iraq
have been largely aimed at the Shia community.

Of course the Iranians have a major political crisis at
home to worry about right now with a major clash
looming between the Iranian Parliament and the
Mullah's

Keith





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Fred J. McCall]

"tadaa" > wrote:

:> :Turkey is strongly against it, because they have problem with kurds who
:> :want to take part of Turkey for that kurdish state. And I think there were
:> :promises made that no kurdish state would be made.
:>
:> And there were promises made about US forces transiting through
:> Turkey. One broken promise deserves another.
:
:A huge majority of turks were against it and to everyone's surprise the
:representatives voted that transit down. Usually their security council
:overrides votes they don't like.

Why they decided to break it is irrelevant. They made an agreement
and then tried to hold us up for more money is what actually happened.
They didn't deliver on their side of the agreement, so they don't get
the money and they shouldn't get the guarantee about not forming an
independent Kurdish state that was part of that deal.

:> :> Create a Shia state in the south. They will have oil and much farmland.
:> :
:> :Current Shiia clergy makes Iran look like a ally of USA.
:> :Most propably sunni muslim states wouldn't like another shiia muslim state
:> :besides Iran at all.
:>
:> Then you're not going to have democracy, since the overwhelming
:> majority of the people in that region (and in Iraq generally, if you
:> keep it together) are Shiia Muslim.
:
:Democracy in Iraq is on kinda shaky ground anyways, specially after that
:moderate Shiia leader died in a bombstrike.

So what are you proposing instead? I think it makes sense to break
the thing up into three regions, since it sort of naturally wants to
be three regions anyway. The 'nation' of Iraq is a relatively recent
invention.

:For kurds the democracy might work and actually for sunnis too if they get
:over the loss of their position as the leader of Iraq. But that is not
:enough if the majority (Shiias) vote for Islamic republic.
:
:Democracy doesn't fit for people who believe in fairy tales it seems.

Democracy doesn't fit when there are significant minorities who are in
vociferous and violent disagreement with the majority. You have to
put together some sort of 'power sharing' deal in those cases, where
things are not really democratic, except on a local level.

Those don't work very well, either. There is geography for a single
Cyprus. There is long historical precedent for Lebanon. There is
neither of those things for a single nation of Iraq.

:> :And what if the result is 1 country in conflict with Turkey, 1 country in
:> :conflict with all the other muslim countries besides Iran and 1 that is just
:> :bitter for all the power it lost?
:>
:> As opposed to some 'power sharing' balancing act like those which were
:> attempted in Cyprus (Greeks/Turks) and Lebanon (Christian/Moslem).
:> We've seen how well those work.
:
:One way or another it isn't going to be easy.

True. But do you have any suggestions, or just critiques? The latter
is easy. The former is somewhat more difficult.

--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse

[Fred J. McCall]

"tadaa" > wrote:

:> :Turkey is strongly against it, because they have problem with kurds who
:> :want to take part of Turkey for that kurdish state. And I think there were
:> :promises made that no kurdish state would be made.
:>
:> And there were promises made about US forces transiting through
:> Turkey. One broken promise deserves another.
:
:A huge majority of turks were against it and to everyone's surprise the
:representatives voted that transit down. Usually their security council
:overrides votes they don't like.

Why they decided to break it is irrelevant. They made an agreement
and then tried to hold us up for more money is what actually happened.
They didn't deliver on their side of the agreement, so they don't get
the money and they shouldn't get the guarantee about not forming an
independent Kurdish state that was part of that deal.

:> :> Create a Shia state in the south. They will have oil and much farmland.
:> :
:> :Current Shiia clergy makes Iran look like a ally of USA.
:> :Most propably sunni muslim states wouldn't like another shiia muslim state
:> :besides Iran at all.
:>
:> Then you're not going to have democracy, since the overwhelming
:> majority of the people in that region (and in Iraq generally, if you
:> keep it together) are Shiia Muslim.
:
:Democracy in Iraq is on kinda shaky ground anyways, specially after that
:moderate Shiia leader died in a bombstrike.

So what are you proposing instead? I think it makes sense to break
the thing up into three regions, since it sort of naturally wants to
be three regions anyway. The 'nation' of Iraq is a relatively recent
invention.

:For kurds the democracy might work and actually for sunnis too if they get
:over the loss of their position as the leader of Iraq. But that is not
:enough if the majority (Shiias) vote for Islamic republic.
:
:Democracy doesn't fit for people who believe in fairy tales it seems.

Democracy doesn't fit when there are significant minorities who are in
vociferous and violent disagreement with the majority. You have to
put together some sort of 'power sharing' deal in those cases, where
things are not really democratic, except on a local level.

Those don't work very well, either. There is geography for a single
Cyprus. There is long historical precedent for Lebanon. There is
neither of those things for a single nation of Iraq.

:> :And what if the result is 1 country in conflict with Turkey, 1 country in
:> :conflict with all the other muslim countries besides Iran and 1 that is just
:> :bitter for all the power it lost?
:>
:> As opposed to some 'power sharing' balancing act like those which were
:> attempted in Cyprus (Greeks/Turks) and Lebanon (Christian/Moslem).
:> We've seen how well those work.
:
:One way or another it isn't going to be easy.

True. But do you have any suggestions, or just critiques? The latter
is easy. The former is somewhat more difficult.

--
"This philosophy of hate, of religious and racial intolerance,
with its passionate urge toward war, is loose in the world.
It is the enemy of democracy; it is the enemy of all the
fruitful and spiritual sides of life. It is our responsibility,
as individuals and organizations, to resist this."
-- Mary Heaton Vorse

[tadaa]

> :A huge majority of turks were against it and to everyone's surprise the
> :representatives voted that transit down. Usually their security council
> :overrides votes they don't like.
>
> Why they decided to break it is irrelevant. They made an agreement
> and then tried to hold us up for more money is what actually happened.
> They didn't deliver on their side of the agreement, so they don't get
> the money and they shouldn't get the guarantee about not forming an
> independent Kurdish state that was part of that deal.

To you it seems that turks didn't accept the transition of troops because
they tried to blackmail more money, to me it seems that turks didn't accept
the transition of troops even when they were offered a very large heap of
money.

> :> :> Create a Shia state in the south. They will have oil and much
farmland.
> :> :
> :> :Current Shiia clergy makes Iran look like a ally of USA.
> :> :Most propably sunni muslim states wouldn't like another shiia muslim
state
> :> :besides Iran at all.
> :>
> :> Then you're not going to have democracy, since the overwhelming
> :> majority of the people in that region (and in Iraq generally, if you
> :> keep it together) are Shiia Muslim.
> :
> :Democracy in Iraq is on kinda shaky ground anyways, specially after that
> :moderate Shiia leader died in a bombstrike.
>
> So what are you proposing instead? I think it makes sense to break
> the thing up into three regions, since it sort of naturally wants to
> be three regions anyway. The 'nation' of Iraq is a relatively recent
> invention.

Most of the nations are relatively recent inventions with large minorities
that are sometimes more or less hostile towards each other. It seems that
wealth is the requirement for stable conditions in a state and between
states.

> :For kurds the democracy might work and actually for sunnis too if they
get
> :over the loss of their position as the leader of Iraq. But that is not
> :enough if the majority (Shiias) vote for Islamic republic.
> :
> :Democracy doesn't fit for people who believe in fairy tales it seems.
>
> Democracy doesn't fit when there are significant minorities who are in
> vociferous and violent disagreement with the majority. You have to
> put together some sort of 'power sharing' deal in those cases, where
> things are not really democratic, except on a local level.
>
> Those don't work very well, either. There is geography for a single
> Cyprus. There is long historical precedent for Lebanon. There is
> neither of those things for a single nation of Iraq.

But chopping up countries does not automatically result in success as
Vietnam and Korea's can prove. On the other hand it might work in other
places for example dividing Israel and Palestine might be a really good
idea.

> :> :And what if the result is 1 country in conflict with Turkey, 1 country
in
> :> :conflict with all the other muslim countries besides Iran and 1 that
is just
> :> :bitter for all the power it lost?
> :>
> :> As opposed to some 'power sharing' balancing act like those which were
> :> attempted in Cyprus (Greeks/Turks) and Lebanon (Christian/Moslem).
> :> We've seen how well those work.
> :
> :One way or another it isn't going to be easy.
>
> True. But do you have any suggestions, or just critiques? The latter
> is easy. The former is somewhat more difficult.

Well while USA is in a spending spree it could shower Iraq with all kinda
goodies and turn them into couch potatoes :)

[Michael Petukhov]

"Keith Willshaw" > wrote in message >...
> "kirill" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > assurancetourix wrote:
> > >
>
> > > Bush is smarter than I thought; he seems to have adopt the second
> > > solution recently, any protest from Sistani are taken seriously by the
> > > US authorities.
> >
> > The Iraqi Shiites are aligned with the Iranian ones so I don't see them
> being
> > willing clients to Uncle $am.
>
> In fact the Iraqi Shia's are being generally quite well behaved and
> the Iranians have so far largely refrained from causing trouble. The
> few attacks and bomb explosions in Shia sections of Iraq
> have been largely aimed at the Shia community.
>
> Of course the Iranians have a major political crisis at
> home to worry about right now with a major clash
> looming between the Iranian Parliament and the
> Mullah's
>
> Keith
>
Nevertheless, Keith there were reports by US occupation command
that there were dangerous infiltration of armed Shiites from
Iran into south of Iraq. What do you think they are doing there?
Right, they are preparing infrastructure to get in power when
US/UK would have to leave that area and let them along. Gordon
told us that 1000 casulaties is US pain barrier. They have got
already 500 (officially). So by the end of this year this
barrier will be reached. There si also money barrier. Media
reports that total cost of Iraq war and occupation now
reached $180bil. How many oils they could grab for that
$180bil? Does it already reached the level of profitability?
I do not think.

Michael
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Stephen Harding]

Keith Willshaw wrote:

> "kirill" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>assurancetourix wrote:
>>
>>>Bush is smarter than I thought; he seems to have adopt the second
>>>solution recently, any protest from Sistani are taken seriously by the
>>>US authorities.
>>
>>The Iraqi Shiites are aligned with the Iranian ones so I don't see them
>> being willing clients to Uncle $am.
>
> In fact the Iraqi Shia's are being generally quite well behaved and
> the Iranians have so far largely refrained from causing trouble. The
> few attacks and bomb explosions in Shia sections of Iraq
> have been largely aimed at the Shia community.

Furthermore, the Shias of Iraq are not one monolithic community.
They are above all, Iraqis (except for the Kurds), and aren't
necessarily inclined to do anything Iranian. There's a wide range
of views in the community including wanting nothing to do with an
Islamic republic.

They do uniformly want to have a say in the affairs of their country.

> Of course the Iranians have a major political crisis at
> home to worry about right now with a major clash
> looming between the Iranian Parliament and the
> Mullah's

Hard to believe the US is quite a popular country amongst common
Iranians now days. (Perhaps not so hard to believe given half of
Iranians weren't even born when the Islamic Republic was born).

The Iranians will stumble and bumble their way eventually into a
genuinely working, democratic state.

The mullahs are seen (and indeed have become) incredibly corrupt
individuals. Their days are numbered, and it won't be through
any action by the US. The Islamic Republic will be destroyed
through the actions of its own people.


SMH

[Jarg]

"Free Palestine Information Agency" >
wrote in > We should have left it the way it was. It was better with
<Saddam.

That is a really silly thing to say. Thank goodness people like you have no
say in the matter.

Jarg