A new report for a “plan B” in Iraq was released Thursday calling for a “soft partition” of the country to restore stability.
The report, The Case of Soft Partition in Iraq, was prepared by two fellows from The Johns Hopkins Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and the Brookings Institution. It came in 41pages, including three maps to outline the provinces, the oil infrastructure in Iraq and the “sectarian map of Baghdad” to support their proposal.
“Soft partition in many ways simply responds to current realities on the ground,” said the two researchers in their summary. “If carefully implemented, it would help end the war and the enormous loss of life on all sides.”
The proposal calls for three regions to be recognized in Iraq; Kurdistan [which already exists,] Shiastan and Sunnistan [in their words.] In order to succeed, it will need to relocate an estimated two to five million Iraqis within the country and provide them with jobs, housing and means of life. The new Iraq will be three governments, with no significant central power and the name “Iraq” is most likely to disappear making the way to the new “stans.”
Edward P. Joseph, one of the researchers, is a visiting scholar lecturer at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies at Johns Hopkins Univ. Earlier in his career, he said, he served for 10 years in the Balkans with the UN. His only knowledge about Iraq came from a visit to Baghdad in the fall off 2004 to work for United States Agency for International Development or USAID.
Michael E. O’Hanlon, the other researcher, is a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and specializes in U.S. national security. His knowledge about Iraq comes from working for two years as a Peace Corps volunteer in former Zaire! Well, he has no knowledge about Iraq. Nevertheless, he is a senior author of the Iraq Index with Jason Campbell since 2003.
Joseph said that he got a “clue” on how the partition of Iraq would be “the only hope for avoiding an all-out-civil war” when he was talking to ONE Iraqi Shiite politician in Baghdad.
Joseph’s “clue” was confirmed observation: the Iraqis have chosen partition “in their voting patterns, when they not only had indorsed in two free election in 2005 sectarian religious parties, you have to bear in mind they rejected no-sectarian national alternatives,” he said.
This “observation” shows the total ignorance in Iraq’s background and situation now. He totally ignored the fact that Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, which he mentioned in his remarks, did not only accept, but also encouraged the United Iraqi Alliance [Shiites main bloc] to use his name in their political campaign. They used his name, picture and statements to appeal to the Iraqis, who were fed up with politics and have turned to the mysterious power of their “God” to help them. Therefore, they voted for Imam Hussein, Imam Ali and Imam whatever to help them, not to Hakim and Jaafari. They voted for Muslim Imams, not Shiite Imams.
I do understand the idea of partition. Iraq is already divided into Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni area now. Baghdad is. And I do think that’s the way to go in Iraq now, at least for the next 50 years. But it needs to be taken seriously and not by people who don’t understand the country and the culture.
O’Hanlon gave seven points of implementation, which he said will be very necessary for the project to succeed.
He said that the U.S. troops level will have to stay in the range of 150,000 in the country for all 2008 to help implement the other points. But “we do believe that if the Iraqis really agreed to this… it could lead for a major reduction in violence,” which would eventually lead to reduction in troops level. That would take 12 to 18 months, he said.
Other elements, he said, would be to relocate people, help them start “new lives,” sharing of oil revenue, issuing new ID cards for people so “Qaeda cannot infiltrate,” into the cities, build new regional institutions, especially security forces and drawing regional boundaries, which he said could start by using the “natural boundary” of the Tigris river to split Baghdad into a Shiite and a Sunni regions!
The security forces will be based on sectarian backgrounds: Shiites will protect Shiite areas, Sunnis will protect the Sunnis and the Kurds will continue to protect themselves.
“That is a formula that seems to work,” said O’Hanlon.
When asked about the role of Iran in the plan to divide Iraq and whether he thought Iran would welcome the idea, Josephs said that “we are stuck with the fact that Shiite aspirations have been unleashed.” But, he added, Iraq will not be in the position of a chaotic battle of Shiites and Sunnis, and at the same time has a massive Iranian influence, because “you cannot have both scenarios at the same time. They are mission exclusive.”!!!! Just to show you how much he doesn’t know about the region.
One of the most ridiculous questions asked by the audience was “how about annexing some of Iraq to adjoining countries, for example: the western side with the nomadic tribal ties to Jordan… is that a possibility?”
Even more ridiculous was the answer: “if the Sunnis electively decided to join Jordan and Jordan wanted them in, the whole spirit of our proposal would be ‘OK’ if they really want that. They are making the decision.”
When people asked about the minorities, like Turkumans, Christians, Yazidis and others and what would happen to them. The answer was “leave to Kurdistan.”!!
Although the two men insisted that the Iraqis will have to decide what to do and to implement the plan, if agreed on, and kept repeating that “in the end, this must be an Iraqi decision. We cannot do it,” there was no Iraqi official in the audience and there was no evidence in the report or in their remarks that any of the two spoke to an Iraqi official since 2004.
It is clear that the report was based on no facts, no studies and no knowledge of the subject under discussion. It was obvious that the two researchers did not do their research and knew nothing about Iraq and Iraqis. It is an immature, poorly constructed stack of papers that included nothing useful but the original map of Iraq.
It was clear that Josephs and O’Hanlon had no desire to help Iraq or Iraqis and they didn’t feel the shame to declare that to the audience.
“Frankly, I think about Iraq at this point in strategic terms only. This is a plan to help our own interests,” in the region, O’Hanlon said.
To read the report, click here.
Painting by Iraqi artist Betool Fekaiki
At 10:34 AM, 
"It is clear that the report was based on no facts, no studies and no knowledge of the subject under discussion."
This pretty well sums up the Bush administration's decision making process leading to the invasion of Iraq. So, I wouldn't be at all surprised to hear Bush's mouthpiece Tony Snow extolling the virtues of this plan sometime soon.
I do not know what is best for the people of Iraq, but I am sure that Iraqis must decide this for themselves. Four years of Americans telling Iraqis what to do has gotten hundreds of thousands of human beings killed and set the stage for more of the same to follow. Maybe some sort of partition is the way to go. When India became independent from England, it partitioned itself into India and Pakistan. There was a massive human migration when this happened. Fortunately, it was a mostly peaceful migration. When Yugoslavia broke apart there was a civil war, atrocities, and many deaths, but people migrated and today there is relative peace. Several million Iraqis are already internally or externally displaced, so in effect, the Iraqi migration has already begun. I just hope the civil war can be avoided!
I am so tired of hearing politicians (or in this case, theoriticians) talk about the strategic interest of the United States. When will these idiots realize that what is good for the other people of the world is also good for the U.S.? Americans are so spoiled by having their pick of all the resources of the world at cheap prices. Well, frankly, this sort of attitude is not conducive to raising billions of non-Americans out of poverty. Poverty and lack of hope are fertile breeding grounds for future terrorists. There is no possibility of winning any "war on terror", but there could be a chance to reduce the causes of terrorism with the right sort of investments in the future of humanity. I'm not very optimistic about that happening though.
On a lighter note, I would just like to say that I really like the paintings of Betool Fekaiki. She is a very talented artist! Thanks for sharing them with us.
nothing like a little propaganda in the framing! what is soft about this??? i remember reading about this a couple weeks ago. this is screwed.
john hopkins is where the neonuts go when they 'retire'. brookings is no better. this is the zionist plan. all the countries can have there own religion like you know who. lovely timing. cheney wants to get this done while he's still in office. they all do. this plan has been in the works since day 1. nothing new here but the approach. what's this 'it's up to iraqis?' yeah right. just like the surge (oh great happy lynn is back, she can tell us how well its doing contrary to what we all know).
obviously this wouldn't be getting any press if it weren't exactly what the new map middle east crowd has wanted. what goes here. every 50 years we decide to redesign the middle east???
“if the Sunnis electively decided to join Jordan and Jordan wanted them in, the whole spirit of our proposal would be ‘OK’ if they really want that. They are making the decision.”
whose 'they'?? nudge nudge???
“we do believe that if the Iraqis really agreed to this… it could lead for a major reduction in violence,”
and if they don't agree there will be hell to pay right? either way there will be hell to pay until iraqis decide to get w/the neocon program!
new ID cards for people so “Qaeda cannot infiltrate,”
righto cheerio, its all because of AQ. yawn. wasn't this every american now has to register and be monitored coming over our borders? because of the terrorists? nothing like a little terror to get everyone in line!
I do understand the idea of partition. Iraq is already divided into Shiite, Kurdish and Sunni area now. Baghdad is. And I do think that’s the way to go in Iraq now, at least for the next 50 years.
i'm surprised to hear you say this Omar. divide and conquer. no more iraq. sunnistan? shitestan? barf barf barf.
there is nothing soft about this, nothing at all. its going to be one long genocidal nightmare.
iraq the new israel
Lame-duck US President George W Bush, last week in a speech at the US Naval War College, made it official: Israel is the model for Iraq, although Iraq is rather more like Palestine.
read it an weep. so, a little report huh? nothing new? nice framing, nothing happening here folks go back to sleep. i don't think so.. i think we are hearing THE PLAN. first its shoved out as a little report from a think tank and its all up to iraqis. then we hear some puppets telling us all the moderates like the plan. then before you know it they start shoving people around and knocking off intellectuals (the ones still living ) who disagree.
this just sucks. and who makes out like a bandit???? and all because of thet AQ induced violence. or was it the civil war? meanwhile those helpful americans w/thee benchmarks are pushing on w/the plan regardless of iraqs wishes.
massive bummer. kick the foreigners OUT OF YOUR COUNTRY or you'll all start looking like palestinians. 50 years? you've got to be kidding me.
bye bye iraq
after nurturing all the fanatics and dividing the country into religious zones, you can all suffer the results of being what you are... arabs. there will be benchmark after benchmark and you will lose more, and more and more.. just like you know where.
the people manging this operation don't think much of muslims. or haven't you noticed.
armed forces journal circa 6/06
they took the map/graphic down. it can be viewed here
At 5:36 PM, 
24 Steps to Liberty
Better than taking down hundreds of Iraqis every day. Yes, if they don’t want to live together, then fine. They shouldn’t. But the plan is not to divide Iraq for three regions. The plan should be to protect three regions until the Iraqis, in 50 years, decide to come back together.
I don’t see how we can try to help otherwise. It’s just not going to work.
At 9:26 PM,
These think tank approaches
are not realistic ...
They are academic exercises ...
there is NO Easy solution for Iraqi violence.
Iraq already has natural divisions which have came about over the years ...
I personally would like to see
4 areas with their own regional
governments established.
... but with a strong central government
to adminster things that central governments do best
1) Military
2) Oil industry for Iraq
3) Post office
4) Major Universities
5) Major Highways etc
6) Iraqs ports
7) Perhaps half of the school day
can be for a national curriculum
for fundamental studies
The 4 regions would be
1) Western Region
2) Northern Region
3) Southern Region
4) Capital Region
(an area including Baghdad
and a perimeter around Baghdad)
And all regions will be Iraq
The idea is for Iraqs true patriots
to realize they are all stronger
once unified ... but that
control of some things is better left to the regional governments
and the regional governmets to recognize that a strong but non-intrusive national government
and National identity is also beneficial.
This nonsense of other countries annexing portions of Iraq
are ludicrous ...
we are facing
perhaps 5000 al-queda ... and if
the damn Syrians start helping out
and Iraqi can reconcile they can be killed off quickly.
In addition perhaps 10,000 Hard core Former Regime elements
that will never Moderate ....
And perhaps in balance 10,000
Shia who for some reason will
do the bidding of Iran.
So for the evil doings of 25,000
people an entire nation is to be
divided and 2-5 million people
displaced ???
There is no reason to permanently
label these regions with the current sectarian names Iraq
can move past this by using the
geographical names.
The security plan should be
for all regions to establish security individually for local commerce and the customary way of life in those areas.
And then for those regions to reconcile with the Central government which administers Baghdad and the previously mentioned national resources.
The time and Money spent re-locating 2-5 million Iraqi
should just be spent on building up the 4 regions ... then all Iraqi
can move within Iraq to the region of their choosing if they want.
The Capital region will be the one
where people CHOOSE to live amongst
the other Iraq as they gave done in the past ... If Mehdi Army
in Sadr City
cannot tolerate Sunni Mosques
a shoirt distance away
well then Move to Southern Region ...
If Sunni clerics cannnot stand the sight of Imam Ali Posters ...
in shops etc
well urge your flock to move
the Hell out of Baghdad to the west
In anycase Bush is going to continue as is for at least 4- 6 months ... and then depending how things are going will make an
adjustment ... the adjustment will
in all probability be to cut down on American patrols and simply rely
more and more on Iraqi forces
and have Americans in Backup and support roles ... but for now
the current operations will continue ... its what the generals want ....
And there seems to be less violence
in Baghdad ... its up to Iraqi police to try and drive the violence down even further in areas
that Americans Vacate ... that my friends is what the surge depends on ... after the brutal fighting
areas must be flooded with the good people.
I doubt that Bush will divide Iraq .... and if a Democrat is elected they will simply
start a massive withdrawal of American forces ... if a Republican
is elected ... and this is still
about two years from now
Anything can happen ... most likely
two years from now with Republican President Americans will ...
(unless Iraqi Parliament votes us out) rely more and more on air strikes to keep violence from spreading beyond Iraqs borders ...
A lot can Happen in two years time
hopefully there will be huge improvement.
most likely
two years from now with Republican President Americans will ...
the only way that will ever happen is the rethugs thieving another term.
Better than taking down hundreds of Iraqis every day.
well of course. but there is no guarentee this is a solution now is there? the surge was supposed to bring improvement and how's that lookin'?
so far, why don't we review all the neocon plans that have resulted in less violence?
" You never change things by fighting the existing reality. To change something, build a new model that makes the xisting model obsolete."
buckminster fuller
some may think dividing iraq is a new model. me, i think it is an extension of the model we have been following since pnac devised it. it's all right there in the constituion, ready to go. all they needed was a reason, i guess they have it now.
honestly, if i thought this solution would be the best for iraq i would endorse it. we have a saying here in the states, maybe it is world wide i don't know.. 'when rape is inevitable, relax and enjoy it.'
needless to say this is not a popular saying and usually used in sarcasm.
(1) Congratulations on removing Mr Kryptonite's garbage from the thread, 24.
(2) This whole "division" plan is just sick. It makes me livid inside to think that if some people had not been complete morons 4 years ago, none of this might be happening. It makes me really angry that these partition plans are seriously being considered. On the other hand, the reality is that the current carnage cannot go on and that some sort of solution must be found. I'm still hoping that some other solution will come to the fore.
i think it is important to recognize some fundamental issues that have prevented iraqis to trust the occupation. although i hear lots of noise about the protection of civilians why is it that iraqis can't seem to fully embrace this 'american model'? tho it is fashionable to blame the bulk of the resistance/carnage on AQ it seems if this were really the case the combination of the iraqi people and the troops could easily squash AQ and the fundies.
if US policy makers really wanted peace and stability why are they so reluctant to change any of their fundamental demands????
dividing the country is just another way of narrowing the field and isolating the opposition to make the end goal more accessible. but, it will not end the problem of what feeds the opposition to occupation. this is why it will not solve the problem of violence, unless submission of the goals of a healthy prosperous nation is tantamount to success, and it isn't.
an important article from american prospect
Across the political spectrum in Washington, many now demand that the Maliki government meet certain benchmarks, which presumably would show that it's really in charge in Iraq. But there's a particular problem with the most important benchmark that the Iraqi government is being pressured to meet: the oil law. The problem is, in Iraq, it may be the single most unpopular measure the United States is trying to get the government to enact.
how can you expect people to trust you while you are trying to rob them?? if the US knows this is a problem, and they really want peace, why don't they back down on these demands?
In the United States, this law is generally presented as a means to share the oil wealth among different geographic regions of the country. Many Iraqis, however, see it differently. They look the proposed law and see instead the way its welcomes foreign oil companies into the oil fields. They see the control it would give those oil companies over setting royalties, deciding on production levels, and even determining whether Iraqis get to work in their own industry.
we all know this. no amount of lipstick on this pig is going to hide the obvious.
The oil workers union has now emerged as one of the strongest voices of Iraqi nationalism, protecting an important symbol of Iraq's national identity, and, more importantly, the only source of income capable of financing the country's post-occupation reconstruction. U.S. legislators trying to impose the oil law might take note that they are requiring the Maliki government to betray one of the few reasons Iraqis have for supporting it -- its ability to keep the oil revenue in public hands.
Fighting for these demands makes the union even more popular, and further enhances its nationalist credentials. Many Iraqis see it defending the interests of the millions of workers who have to make a living and keep their families eating in the middle of a war zone. Conversely, the United States, which imposed a series of low-wage laws at the beginning of the occupation, looks bent on enforcing poverty.
what is the incentive for the continued support of the resistance and why aren't people demanding we tackle the incentive? there is a 'strategy of tension ' policy that is supposed to inspire people to cast their lot w/the occupation and the government to protect them from the increasing violence. it seems counter productive. why not take away the incentive?
remember the aesops fable about the sun and the wind competing to get the man to take his coat off?
what i see is tactic after tactic being used by the occupation, dividing iraq being one of them. but i don't see anything, anything at all they are willing to compromise in terms of their initial goals. the privatization policies, the new middle east map.. they just keep pressing forward regardless of the extent of the carnage. they want a solution to end the violence but not if it means backing down on their goal of controlling iraqs wealth. how can anyone trust these intentions?
Iraq has a long labor history. Union activists, banned and jailed under the British and its puppet monarchy, organized a labor movement that was the admiration of the Arab world when Iraq became independent after the revolution in 1958. After Saddam Hussein came to power, though, he drove its leaders underground, killing and jailing the ones he could catch.
When Saddam fell, Iraqi unionists came out of prison, up from underground, and back from exile, determined to rebuild the labor movement. Miraculously, in the midst of war and bombings, they did. The oil workers union in the south is now one of the largest organizations in Iraq, with thousands of members on the rigs, pipelines, and refineries. The electrical workers' union is the first national labor organization headed by a woman, Hashmeya Muhsin Hussein.
Together with other unions in railroads, hotels, ports, schools, and factories, they've gone on strike, held elections, won wage increases, and made democracy a living reality. Yet the Bush administration, and the Baghdad government it controls, has outlawed collective bargaining, impounded union funds, and turned its back on a wave of assassinations of Iraqi union leaders.
what about empowering these patriots? what about finding where the strengths lie in iraq society and supporting them?
As Arab labor leader Hacene Djemam bitterly observed, "War makes privatization easy: First you destroy society; then you let the corporations rebuild it."
....
At the occupation's end, the government in Baghdad will need control of the oil wealth to rebuild a devastated country. That gives Iraqis a big reason to fight to protect public ownership and control of the oil industry.
if you take away the incentive, america would have no reason to be there except as a protective force, and iraqis would have a lot less reason to reject american intervention. dividing the nation is a way to narrow the scope, get the sunnis out of the way of negotiation and proceed w/the theft of iraq's economic future.
even if i am wrong (and i don't think i am) as long as people believe this (and they do), they will reject the thief. Let’s give the thief one more chance?
At 2:31 PM,
This report is as you said, a mere immature try to draw attention to a sick plan from people who don't know anything about the country, and even if by magic this solution stands a chance, it coudn't be acheived in a million years rather than 50, the "Iraq is the new Israel" is a living proof that Iraqis should wake up and handle themselves, coz if you look at it!, it could be going that way, the problem is spreading, and more stupid solutions are being brought to us, should we bare them all?, if some stupid guy has the world running like a puppet in his hand, more stupid solutions like these should be ecpected in tons in the next coming days.
When asked about the role of Iran in the plan to divide Iraq and whether he thought Iran would welcome the idea, Josephs said that “we are stuck with the fact that Shiite aspirations have been unleashed.” But...
I have a solution to this problem. The US redeploys it's current 160,000 troops and all their equipment into hardened defensive positions in Iraqi Kurdistan before the partition. Then on partition day, US includes a big chuck of Iran as the new Kurdistan. Think Iran will let that go unchallenged I don't. Boom boom. Out go the lights on the IRI.
I'm not even joking. That's the best case scenario for defeating the Islamic Republic of Iran. And the bets part of it is, we don't even need to invade and occupy anyone.
Iraqimedic –
I find your comments are always thoughtful and penetrating. Thanks for posting this one, it was good to read. It’s true that there are segments of the US establishment that would like a divided Iraq, and the thinking behind it can be seen in the infamous “Clean Break” document. Frankly such a move would lay the foundations for years of inter-fighting and war between the little ‘stans … which is also precisely what some people want.
Check this out, for example:
http://www.danielpipes.org/article/3423
“Terminate the dream of Iraq serving as a model for other Middle Eastern countries, thus delaying the push toward elections. This will have the effect of keeping Islamists from being legitimated by the popular vote, as Hamas was just a month ago.
Reduce coalition casualties in Iraq. As noted by the Philadelphia Inquirer, "Rather than killing American soldiers, the insurgents and foreign fighters are more focused on creating civil strife that could destabilize Iraq's political process and possibly lead to outright ethnic and religious war."
Reduce Western casualties outside Iraq. A professor at the U.S. Naval Postgraduate School, Vali Nasr, notes: "Just when it looked as if Muslims across the region were putting aside their differences to unite in protest against the Danish cartoons, the attack showed that Islamic sectarianism remains the greatest challenge to peace." Put differently, when Sunni terrorists target Shiites and vice-versa, non-Muslims are less likely to be hurt.
Civil war in Iraq, in short, would be a humanitarian tragedy but not a strategic one.”//end
Annie –
Good to see you back in action. Your post on Iraqi oil was on the money as always.
Here’s a link to some oil commentary of my own:
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/zeyad/5804278471861111317/?a=35289#368473
(Notice how whiny our friend K gets when nobody pays him attention … :D )
Craig –
I see you’re advocating violent armed conflict as a solution to international relations, as always. Doesn’t surprise me. Interesting to note that - boom-boom-boom – the Iraqi resistance to occupation has drastically modified that view from being a mainstream American view. Too bad, eh?
At 7:37 AM,
3eeraqimedic .....you show everyone how these groups are constantly at other’s throats, and if they don’t play ball you encourage them a little.
encourage. hmm. a little nudge here, a little nudge there...i'd like to peek in the black ops file at the pentagon or cia
(wapo) Intelligence professionals tell me that more than 50 percent of the National Clandestine Service (NCS) -- the heart, brains and soul of the CIA -- has been outsourced to private firms such as Abraxas, Booz Allen Hamilton, Lockheed Martin and Raytheon.
there's something creepy about Lockheed employees payed by the CIA detecting threats that requires to buy the Air Force more Lockheed F-22 fighters to combat them ...
follow the money and all that. there's also that revolving door between SAIC the privatized planners, privatized 'security' and lockheed, all military contractors.
craig....on partition day
day? voila!
US includes a big chuck of Iran..... And the bets part of it is, we don't even need to invade
that should be a neat trick. seriously, the logic of rightwingers stuns me sometimes.
bruno, thanks to the link to your oil commentary. i found your links scrolling up especially interesting. ugh on the neocon daniel pipes ....
The bombing on February 22 of the Askariya shrine in Samarra, Iraq, was a tragedy, but it was not an American or a coalition tragedy.
he can barely contain himself w/the good fortune? his thoughts wouldn't be so transparent if he had simply held back from posting the updates.
Diana West takes an even stronger stance in "Let the Muslims fight it out," where she calls the "let-them-devour-each-other strategy" "peachy."
these guys specialize in framing their positions in such a way as to completely justify their ill intent. "Fixing Iraq is neither the coalition's responsibility nor its burden. " huh?? when he speaks about the 'implications' of "eruption of civil war" they all just happen to lead to ideas neocons are .. promoting! surprise surprise. one could easily imagine the temptation towards 'encouragement'.
At 9:15 AM,
At 3:59 PM,
"Notice how whiny our friend K gets when nobody pays him attention …
Hmm . . . except I think you have me (K) confused me with kryptonite. We're not the same person."
Notice how orgasmically gleeful Bruno and Annie gets when 24 silences my very moderate opinions. It's symptomatic of the very "group think" that blocks any of the so called "antiwar" patrons to see outside the box, or to at least confront their own contradictions. In the end, it only reaffirms the very low opinion I have of them. They can't argue, so they silence. An effective strategy on a virtual blog, but not exactly worthy of respect.
At 5:21 PM,
Notice how orgasmically gleeful Bruno and Annie gets when 24 silences my very moderate opinions.
i wish. bores like you do not inspire orgasmic glee, ever. and rarely have i heard a moderate view from you.
luring Iran into a defeat
yawn, i am still waiting for you to elaborate on how the US/IS is going to 'include' a big chunk of iran into kurdistan without an invasion. maybe they will use their magic lasso.
At 7:51 PM,
yawn, i am still waiting...
You can wait forever, annie. I realized during that discussion about education in the US that you are a person of average intelligence (maybe) who tries to pass as being bright and well informed. Most bloggers and blog commenters are smarter than you are. Even Bruno is - which it pains me to say.
I have better things to do than try to explain complex issues to a person who doesn't have the capacity to understand them. Your response would undoubtedly be to post a few completely irrelevant anti-war links and declare victory :O
At 11:44 PM,
BT: "This is what has been dreamed of by many countries, Iraq's division"
Me: Care to name a few?
A: "i don't really know outside of the obvious neocons ruling US/IS..."
So, are we down to he usual suspects - The US and Israel that want Iraq partitioned? Oh,and I mustn't forget the 'global corporate elite...' - whatever country that is...
So are there many or just the bloody jew countries - US/Israel?
Just trying to clarify what exactly you are saying, as "many" would mean 10 or more "counries that want Iraq partitioned," not just the US and israel.
[annie] “bruno, thanks to the link to your oil commentary.”
Shukran for your kind words, Annie. I regularly read the nuggets you post as well! :)
[k] “Hmm . . . except I think you have me (K) confused me with kryptonite.”
Sorry. I was talking exactly about Kryp, not you. I forgot that you were about.
[kryptonite] “whine whine whine”
Have a Scooby-Snack, there’s a nice boy.
[craig] “I suppose you two think it would be best to leave a crippled Iraq with an intact neighbor like Iran, right? Do you really hate Iraqis that much?”
Craig, let’s talk realistically here. The US hits Iran, what’s Iran going to do? Barring some lucky strike on a US carrier with their arsenal of antiship missiles, their conventional military response will be largely ineffective against overwhelming US airpower. My guess is that you will probably see a fairly easy US aerial campaign.
But Iran isn’t going to just sit back and take it. They will activate their proxy forces, including the BADR Brigade, which the US has kindly handed most of the Iraqi military and special police over to. That’s right, there will be a sustained insurgency against the US within Iraq by the very forces you are currently relying on.
Of course, the US has a few smart people in addition to the Neocon fruitcakes, and they have already considered this. What to do? Why, co-opt the “insurgency” (or at least the bits that are more anti-Iran than anti-US) and unleash them against the Iranian effort, of course. Which is why we have such a sustained US effort to be ‘nice’ to the Anbar Sunni Sheikhs (were before they were dismissed as irrelevant and useless) and in arming the “sunni” tribes.
In other words, if a US strike on Iran goes ahead, it will use the sectarian divide in order to create Iraqi buffer forces between itself and the uprisings instigated by Iran. That’s exactly the sort of backflip I’d expect from your COIN specialists, and exactly the strategy the US first followed by pitching the Shias against the Sunnis in the first place.
Frankly, I think a US strike on Iran will leave ordinary Iraqis in an even worse position than before.
That’s not good, btw.
Oh, and Craig, I find your “break a chunk off Iran” um, ‘plan’ to be extremely simplistic. Forgetting the fact that the Iranian regime has way more support than Hussein did (and thus is unlikely to simply crumble as all the Neocons think it will) and forgetting the fact that Iran will be able to present a far greater conventional / insurgency threat than Iraq … you’re completely forgetting about Turkey.
They’re already all riled up about the Kurds, and the US creating a de facto Kurdish state will make them go ballistic. I think that America will have some unexpected opposition from people that have been your friends for a long, long time. But then, US interests always come first, right?
you are a person of average intelligence (maybe) who tries to pass as being bright and well informed.
i don't 'try' to 'pass' as anything other than what i am which is common. i have something that may be foreign to you, common sense. that is all it takes to determine 'including' a big chunk of iran into kurdistan is no cakewalk nor is 'luring' iran any guarantee of their 'defeat', sans invasion? a few well placed nukes or some poison pills?
no wonder you profess my 'lack of intelligence' to evade answering my questions! maybe one of your fellow travelers will try to back up your rediculous assertions. i'm not holding my breath.
Just trying to clarify what exactly you are saying, as "many" would mean 10 or more
i didn't say many (which btw, is not defined as 10 or more), i said few.
Oh,and I mustn't forget the 'global corporate elite...' - whatever country that is...
no, you mustn't. they are part of a juggernaut of corporate elites who don't consider the ramifications of the citizens of the countries they rule and/or suppress as long as the end results meet their demands which amount to ways to harvest the resources from the populace while suppressing any true democratic movements that do not jive w/their economic agenda. so, in that sense i do think it is more a corporate elite zionist enterprise than the will of the citizens of any one country.
State-Organized Crime as a Case Study Of Criminal Policy
Department of Criminal Justice and Police Studies
521 Lancaster Avenue
Stratton 467
Eastern Kentucky University
Richmond, Kentucky 40475-3102
CRJ 875: Crime and Public Policy
sounds like an interesting course. you can scroll down and view some of the criminal enterprises and how they operate. then you can tell me all of this is just part of our history and nothing like that would be happening now under the careful watch of the people who brought us iran/contra.
last but not least a very important link to a study about the 'servants' that carry out the masters plans and how it effects them and the civilians they encounter.
In the sections that follow, snipers, medics, military police, artillerymen, officers and others recount their experiences serving in places as diverse as Mosul in the north, Samarra in the Sunni Triangle, Nasiriya in the south and Baghdad in the center, during 2003, 2004 and 2005. Their stories capture the impact of their units on Iraqi civilians.
At 8:31 AM, 24 Steps to Liberty
We can keep fighting and arguing, but that doesn't mean Iraq is not heading towards division.
It is clear that the Iraqi politicians and U.S. administration officials are working on dividing the country into three regions.
What about democracy? Well, they didn’t promise democracy to Iraqis. They clearly said “democracy to minorities” and that is the Iraqi politicians who “suffered” for 30 years outside Iraq, in Europe, U.S., and Iran. They are enjoying democracy now. Everyone will get a piece.
Bruno,
Frankly, I think a US strike on Iran will leave ordinary Iraqis in an even worse position than before.
And we all know how important the health and happiness of Iraqis is to you, don't we?
Oh, and Craig, I find your “break a chunk off Iran” um, ‘plan’ to be extremely simplistic.
Yeah. Why should we destroy the Iranian military apparatus the easy way? Why not bomb Iran for a year, instead?
Forgetting the fact that the Iranian regime has way more support than Hussein did (and thus is unlikely to simply crumble as all the Neocons think it will)
Who thinks teh Iranian regime will "crumble"? The only people I've seen propose that idea are Iranian dissidents. I'm not talking about causing the regime to crumble. I'm talking about killing the Iranian military when it tries to re-take the Iranian section of "Kurdistan".
and forgetting the fact that Iran will be able to present a far greater conventional / insurgency threat than Iraq
Conventional, yes. But that's like saying rabbits pose more a threat squirrels. What does the US have to fear? Human wave attacks from millions of Basij? That could potentially be a problem, but how is Iran going to get those millions up to US defensive positions? How is Iran going to feed them after they arrive?
And *you* forget the US has survived Chinese human wave attacks, before... when the US military was far less capable than it is now. If Iran sends millions of Basij to fight US troops, they will die in the millions, too. Or (more likely) desert in the millions.
… you’re completely forgetting about Turkey.
What does Turkey have to do with it? I suspect giving the Kurdish parts (and a bit more!) of Iran to the new Kurdistan will ease Turkey's concerns a great deal. It would give Kurdistan room to grow, and make it more viable. And Turkish Kurds would likely emigrate to the new Kurdistan in large numbers.
Sorry, Bruno, but it's your ideas that are hide-bound and simplistic. You're stuck in the box.
oh,
and forgetting the fact that Iran will be able to present a far greater conventional / insurgency threat than Iraq
I actually think the Iranians can't launch a similar terrorist insurgency to what is happening in Iraq. Iran has never demonstrated an ability to produce "mujahedeen" - the IRI has always relied on Arab, Afghan, Pakistani, etc terrorist proxies to do it's dirty work. Iranians actually aren't very religious, and they certainly aren't fanatical enough to suicide themselves. Despite what they say on TV. I'm not aware of a single suicide attack an Iranian has ever conducted.
And you also assume that Iranians will be able to start an insurgency in Kurdish areas. How much luck have the jihadis had with that, in Iraq?
Why should we destroy the Iranian military apparatus the easy way?
are you referring to a pre emptive nuclear attack?
can someone fill me in? is this the 'non invasion' way to bite off a chunk of iran referred to upthread?
I'm talking about killing the Iranian military when it tries to re-take the Iranian section of "Kurdistan".
isn't this a little cart before the horse talking about iran 'retaking'. how exactly are you going to 'take' a section of iran for kurdistan w/out invading it??
this is the same cakewalk talk we had about baghdad. whats going to happen to the entire region once this division plan goes into effect? there are millions of people who are going to be displaced. massive repercussions. you just going to nuke a huge area and then go in and occupy it?
does anybody planning this stuff consider human suffering?? are we going to roman option the place?
is this syncing w/IS?US syria/lebanon destabilization. is this the faster please caldron ledeen and the neonuts want. what, we have another 18 months of cheney rules and they are determined to get the entire region as shaken up as possible so anyone taking their place will have no choice but to continue dealing w/there version of mission accomplished?
Everyone will get a piece.
yeah, but will anyone get peace? do regular people have any choice in this matter at all or are we just all in for the ride of our lives as the war powers drain our blood and treasure to pay for this fiasco?
And we all know how important the health and happiness of Iraqis is to you, don't we?
as opposed to who? you? this plan to create a new map is designed without consideration of civilians or the regular army carrying out the mission. its breaking our army and the spirit/humanity of our troops. what about the american people, do we have a choice? do iraqis?
or does it all come down to 'what israel wants, israel gets?'
are you referring to a pre emptive nuclear attack?
See, this is what happens when somebody likes you tries to engage on complex issues.
I'm talking about drawing the Iranian military into a confrontation where it is the aggressor, and it's troops are out in the open, and exposed. Against hardened US defensive positions. If the Iranian military was equal in every way to the US military, Iran would need a 3 to 1 advantage to pull it off. But, the Iranian military isn't even CLOSE to being equal to the US military. It would be a turkey shoot. And the only alternative to walking into an ass kicking that Iran would have would be to just allow the new Kurdistan to annex a big chuck of Iranian territory.
This would solve so many problems for the US. We have our war with Iran, without having to declare war on THEM. We get Iran's military out and away from civilian populations (and out in the open) where it can be destroyed. We leave Iran in a situation where it poses little threat to Iraqi sovereignty. We may even be able to topple the regime without going anywhere near Tehran, once the Iranian military is all but gone.
From a US perspective, it's perfect. And if Iraq does indeed get partitioned, that is exactly what I expect will happen.
At 3:02 PM,
"your tactic of making extreme assumptions regarding what i think by answering your own questions is noted..."
I'm not making any assumptions. I'm trying to pinpoint what it is, exactly, with clarity, you are trying to say. Repeatedly, your arguments and comments fail to withstand any logical challenges. You simply throw up your arms in utter confusion, claiming that everyone is twisting your words. In fact, I am simply interpreting what you are saying in literal english. If I need to learn some other 'annie language', well...
The point is that your arguments lack depth and clarity. They are ambiguous, facile, and unhelpful.
Suggesting that the US "overthrows" "democratically elected" officials who did not "tow economic lines" is a huge, huge assumption based on biased, obscure facts from agenda driven entitites such as the one you named in your most recent lame response. I could just as easily, with virtually the same evidence that you use, make the statement that the US supports the overthrow of corrupt, unsavory government officials who seek to undermine American security interests for their own selfish financial benefit.
You are not specific. You are simply preaching to people who ALREADY, out of pure laziness, agree with your simple assumptions.
Suggesting that the US "overthrows" "democratically elected" officials who did not "tow economic lines" is a huge, huge assumption based on biased, obscure facts from agenda driven entitites such as the one you named in your most recent lame response.
wikipedia
In 1951, a nationalist politician, Dr. Mohammed Mossadegh rose to prominence in Iran and was elected Prime Minister. As Prime Minister, Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company (later British Petroleum, BP) which controlled the country's oil reserves. In response, Britain embargoed Iranian oil and began plotting to depose Mossadegh. Members of the British Intelligence Service invited the United States to join them, convincing U.S. President Eisenhower that Mossadegh was reliant on the Tudeh (Communist) Party to stay in power. In 1953, President Eisenhower authorized Operation Ajax, and the CIA took the lead in overthrowing Mossadegh and supporting a U.S.-friendly monarch; and for which the U.S. Government apologized in 2000.
CNN
CIA acknowledges involvement in Allende's overthrow, Pinochet's rise
September 19, 2000
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The CIA is acknowledging for the first time the extent of its deep involvement in Chile, where it dealt with coup-plotters, false propagandists and assassins.
CIA.GOV/LIBRARY/CENTER
Following its 1944 revolution, which brought democratically elected leftist governments to power, this Central American government faced an increasingly hostile neighbor to the north, the United States. Guatemala's treatment of US-based corporations, especially the United Fruit Company, in expropriating land and other assets, did nothing to improve relations...
What unfolded in May and June of 1954 is now a familiar story in US intelligence and diplomatic history: Washington used the CIA and US Ambassador John Peurifoy to support and direct certain Guatemalan military leaders in overthrowing Arbenz's government. It was also psychological warfare--cleverly deceptive efforts to persuade Guatemala's citizens and political/military leaders that a major invasion force was steadily moving toward the nation's capital so unnerved Arbenz and others that the government fell without much of a battle.
"based on biased, obscure facts"
LOL
At 4:01 PM,
"Mossadegh became enormously popular in Iran by nationalizing the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company..."
Ummm...so this "democratically elected" popular leader STOLE from Britain and used the money to fund secret anti-British military operations. Sounds kind of like Hugo Chavez, no?
From your same source: "Guatemala's treatment of US-based corporations, especially the United Fruit Company, in expropriating land and other assets, did nothing to improve relations..."
So, South American countries STOLE from the US and then cried when the US tried to defend its interests? Sounds kind of like Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe, no?
At 4:05 PM,
Your stories are also a far cry from providing any actual evidence that the US 1) overthrows 2) democractically elected officials who 3) do not tow economic lines. Again, the US worked to uphold basic democratic principles while protected US interests from attack by entities seeking to undermine the US, both economically and militarily. Something totally different from your initial claims.
PBS: The Secret Government
It aired on PBS in 1987 and is as good as anything on the tape. Moyers is a very respected TV journalist who also worked for Lyndon B. Johnson and has a very professional approach. He interviews many different people involved with the CIA and other government agencies. His documentary gives quite an overview of what has actually happened in the last 50 years regarding the CIA and the cold war (including Iran, Guatamala, Cuba, Viet Nam and Chile). He features such people as Ralph McGeehee and Phil Retinger (both former CIA agents), Rear Admiral Gene La Rocque (Ret. U.S.N.), Theodore Bissell (active in the CIA at the time), Sen. Frank Church and many others. Moyers is so very credible. The full video "The Secret Government" is 90 minutes - this segment is edited by Frank Dorrel to 20 minutes
[craig] “I'm talking about killing the Iranian military when it tries to re-take the Iranian section of "Kurdistan".”
I see that you’re already assuming a conventional military response. May I suggest that the Iranian military has already considered the effects of US airpower and what it will do to massed formations?
[bruno] “… you’re completely forgetting about Turkey.
[craig] “What does Turkey have to do with it? I suspect giving the Kurdish parts (and a bit more!) of Iran to the new Kurdistan will ease Turkey's concerns a great deal.”
Oh, hey, good point! Except for the Turks are DEAD SET against any such Kurdish state in the first place. Don’t you read the news? They threatened to invade Iraq if the Kurds so much as claimed Kirkuk. It’s like me suggesting that US conservative gripes about Mexican immigration would be eased if Texas was given back to Mexico. Basically, Craig, you are dead wrong about this.
[craig] “I actually think the Iranians can't launch a similar terrorist insurgency to what is happening in Iraq. Iran has never demonstrated an ability to produce "mujahedeen"”
Yeah, except for HEZBOLLAH, which just kicked Israeli arse from here to Khartoum last year. Man, if your military planners are in any way thinking like you are … ouch!
[Craig] “Sorry, Bruno, but it's your ideas that are hide-bound and simplistic. You're stuck in the box.”
Wait!
Here’s a good, out of the box idea!
Why don’t you invade IRAQ, and topple Saddam Hussein, the only secularist in the region. Then the Iraqis will welcome you with flowers and cakes. THEN, you can transform this evil socialist state into a flourishing democratic free-enterprise country and use the leverage of the clerics in Najaf to undermine the Iranians in Qom. Then, invite Al Qaeda into Iraq and defeat them decisively, thereby discrediting them and their philosophy. The Iranian state will start crumbling of its own accord when the happy pilgrims see what an Eden Iraq has been transformed into …
Oh, wait, you tried that already, did you?
How’s it working out for you?
Frankly, Craig, I prefer a reality-based approach to problems. Invading IRAN is not a hot idea, take it from me.
[craig] “I'm talking about drawing the Iranian military into a confrontation where it is the aggressor, and it's troops are out in the open, and exposed. Against hardened US defensive positions. If the Iranian military was equal in every way to the US military, Iran would need a 3 to 1 advantage to pull it off.”
Wait, let me see: Amount of US troops fighting a losing battle against an Iraqi insurgency: 165000.
Amount of US troops available to occupy “hardened defensive positions” in Iran, in the face of a Badr insurgency back in Iraq: 0.
Perhaps if the US re-instated the draft … ?
Oh, wait, that’s the reason you have a VOLUNTEER military now. Because drafting pot-smoking, antiwar peaceniks is the fastest way to destroy a military, isn’t it?
Vietnam’s lessons, Craig.
[annie] “no wonder you profess my 'lack of intelligence' to evade answering my questions!”
And that’s precisely the response such an ad hominem attack deserves. As in: “if I’m so dumb, then how come you can’t seem to address my actual POINTS!” Nice, Annie.
(Admittedly your um … lax … use of capitalisation may aggravate the traditionalists amongst us. But I’ve long learned to appreciate the links, comments and info that you manage to dig up, irrespective of how you present them. Thanks. )
[kryptonite] “Your stories are also a far cry from providing any actual evidence that the US 1) overthrows 2) democractically elected officials who 3) do not tow economic lines.”
Evidently you have a major comprehension problem. Annie just demonstrated that this is precisely what the US did in Iran. YOU actually DEFENDED the US action. It’s not good pretending that it never happened, because it did. And not only in major nations like Iran, but also in small dinky Latin American countries. Take for example this, the destruction of a democratically elected president in Guatemala that threatened US business interests:
http://www.warui.com/stefan/warui/h32/TheCIAinGuatemala.html
Annie, I suggest that you don’t take Kryp too seriously.
His only function is to provoke and deny. In fact I’d say he’s a border-line troll. I take the opportunity of dropping links in reply to his ludicrous outbursts from time to time for the sake of disseminating information. I don’t REALLY imagine that I will convert somebody with a 3D direct-feed Neocon agitprop headset on his cranium.
In any case, this man is chronically misinformed. Take for example this:
[kryp] “this "democratically elected" popular leader STOLE from Britain”
http://worldpolicy.org/journal/articles/wpj02-2/Zahrani.pdf
Although some contract modifications were made in 1919, the oil company’s one-sided contract remained in effect until the 1930s—it paid only 16 percent of its profits to Iran, had complete control over export prices, kept its records secret (including the below-market prices the British navy paid for its oil), and did little to replace expatriate technicians with Iranians. [ Yeah, right. WHO’S robbing WHO?]
[...]
Mossadeq replied on May 8 that nationalization was the sovereign right of all states but that Iran would consider British claims for restitution. [In other words, he was prepared to PAY for the assets he took]
So, take it easy, Annie. We all know what calibre Kryptonite is … :D
At 5:37 AM,
A "democracy" would not "nationalize" its oil industry in an effort to forcefully convert billions of dollars in british assets to its own. While its a very complex, patriotic form of stealing, it is still stealing, and its easy to understand why Britain was pissed. Iran, at that point, was not the "democracy" you claim that it was because of this. Its like claiming Hugo Chavez' venezuela is a demcracy or Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe is a democracy: "There were 'elections' - it MUST be a democracy..." Dumbshit.
simply repeating, over and over, that Iran was a "democracy" is not good enough. This is your ASSUMPTION based on newspaper articles that try to summarize all the complex things that happened in Iran in the 1950s in a few short paragraphs. Finding sources claiming that Iran was a "democracy" without analyzing the situation or defining what a democracy is in the first place, is not good enough. It was NOT a democracy and therefore US/Britain did not "overthrow" a democracy, even if you argue that American/British actions constituted "overthrow". Same thing with the South American situation.
A "democracy" would not "nationalize" its oil industry in an effort to forcefully convert billions of dollars in british assets to its own.
yawn. it is much more likely a democracy would decide to be slaves to a foreign interest and settle on the leftover crumbs for themselves no doubt. iranian oil was a british asset fair and square no doubt. you can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all of the time......its always an eye opener reading the rightwing historical revisionists. one of these days the excuse for our permanent bases in iraq will be to protect our assets from iraqis forcefully trying to prevent billions of dollars from leaving their community. we will earn it fair and square. you don't believe me? watch. we are paying for it right now. and as soon as iraqis agree to all the 'benchmarks', it will be ours, forever.
fair and square right?
(Admittedly your um … lax … use of capitalisation may aggravate the traditionalists amongst us.
i swear bruno, i use capitalization when i use a pen/ pencil! it is not a political statement, it is a lazy statement. plus, i think capitalization is a habitual formality, one that is nice, but unnecessary. once i learn to type w/more than two fingers i will master the shift key. someday very very shortly after i learn to play the piano;)
At 12:34 PM,
Me: Logical argument.
Annie: whine, whine, complain, cry.
Me: Logical argument.
Annie: right wing blah blah blah. I win.
"it is much more likely a democracy would decide to be slaves to a foreign interest and settle on the leftover crumbs for themselves no doubt."
Slaves?
If you believe that billions of dollars western patented technology, conceived owned and understood by the Brits at the time, should rightfully belong to the corrupt Iranian governemnt - well, then I can understand why you would think the Iranians were 'slaves.'
The reality is, if the US government converted your house to its own use and threw you on the street, taking away everything you had worked to earn, you would be pissed also.
if the US government converted your house to its own use and threw you on the street, taking away everything you had worked to earn, you would be pissed also.
hmm. i see. yes, this is very correct i would. i imagine you might find some palestinians to agree w/you also. which is exactly why people resist IS/US coming into their countries and treating what is rightfully their national wealth, and killing whoever dares to get in the way.
if it isn't a financial excuse it has something to do w/what is rightfully theirs because of what happened 2500 years ago? lol, i hardly need to whine at you. shooting ducks is more like it. it is good sport until i tire of you which deserves another .....yawn.
no wonder the US wants 'global trade'. then our job can be global police man.. saving the world one impoverished nation at a time. what if (horrors) somebody doesn't want to be partners w/the world superpower. squash.
krypt..Me: Logical argument.
based on fallacy. seriously, sometimes you amuse me no end.
At 4:05 PM,
only w/your not so clever distortion could you claim i said that because i didn't nor did i ask you a question. i placed your comment, w/your question mark in italics. my response was feeh.
kryp: murderer?
Annie: feeh
you lie and distort regularly impunity but do not think for 1 second you can do it by putting words or questions in my mind i didn't utter nor word consider. you know perfectly well italics are used to copy text. the text i copied was not mine, but yours. you want the last word, go for it. but don't try twisting mine to have your say, you will never get away w/it.
At 4:51 PM,
hmm
An adviser to al-Maliki said a fierce gunbattle on Friday between U.S. troops and Iraqi police that killed six policemen was the result of a misunderstanding. U.S. troops had seized a police lieutenant accused of links to Iranian-backed Shiite militants when it came under fire.
Hassan al-Suneid, a legislator close to the prime minister, said American troops did not know a police checkpoint was nearby and "thought they were terrorists." He said Iraqi soldiers with the Americans also fired on the police.
The U.S. military said Friday that it was the police at the checkpoint who opened fire on the Americans first, along with gunmen on nearby rooftops and at a church. U.S. troops called in warplanes for ground strikes, and six policemen and seven gunmen were killed.
The raid captured the lieutenant, who the military said was helping Iran organize Shiite militants and led a cell involved in bomb and mortar attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops. The military did not specify that the police who fired on the Americans were linked to militias as well but said the police maintained "heavy and accurate fire" on the U.S. troops.
The battle underscored the deep infiltration of Shiite militiamen in the police force. Purging the force is one of the benchmarks, and Thursday's report acknowledged progress in it has been "unsatisfactory."
At 1:50 PM,
Annie, you sound really unhinged. Also, it sounds like you buy into a lot of unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. You also sound like you enjoy spewing vitriol at your homeland. Regardless of your own self images, you sound like a bitter, spiteful person.
I actually feel bad for 24. His comments sections should be about his blogs. They should not be used as forums for conspiracy theorists. 24, your blogs are excellent! Keep up the good work.
This post has been removed by a blog administrator.