They say pictures say a thousand words, and since I don't bother writing 1,000 words, here you go:
Here's some more info on it from Wikipedia I'm also too lazy to type up : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_South_Ossetia_Conflict But please note ANYONE can sign up and edit, so it might not be accurate. Right now at the time I'm righting this, it seems pretty detailed and unbiased, but that might change.
Just thought it might be a pleasant break from taking about Iraq, which I hope will help put a new breath of life into this site. Hope you enjoy my friends.
< Message edited by NeoBabylonian -- 8/17/2008 5:02:18 PM >
Come on people, don't tell me no-one has any opinions in this matter?
No one thinks the West should stop involving itself with everything, or that the US's unconditional support to all governments that agree/help it like Israel should stop, as it's doing now with Georgia? No one sees any similarities between what Russia's doing in South Ossetia and what Iran is doing with religious Islamic politics in Iraq - as a fake cover to slither in and take influence over the region? Oh, and in both cases, the US is losing as South Ossetia will probably get absorbed into Russia, as Iraq's government are total puppet to Iran right now - in my opinion at least, especially after their recent targeting of pro-US/West Sunni tribes who are actually fighting Al Qaeda. Seems some are paranoid the US is using the same militia-supporting methods as Iran. As the saying goes, takes one to know one.
Il khatir Allah, now it has something to do with Iraq so you can comment on it.
I am not sure if the united states is in denial of what happening in iraq with the current iranian backed government there or the united states has lost the moral ground and the upper hand in this to the iranians or it is a big scheme for the whole region that the first dominos started in the iraqi invasion and we have not seen the end of it yet
i find it hard to believe the united states brough a shia government in iraq to let iran run the show unless iran is playing the broker to control the regional politics and playing equally with turkey and israel and having saudi arabia and jordon and now lebanon on board
you have to know that the only losers in this are the iraqis but the implication of the united states actions are far beyond the iraqi borders
what i am not sure about is what role the iraqi government is playing inside iraq is it to keep the peac? what peace
is it to restore the country? restore what? everything is 10000 times worse than what it was 1 2 3 4 5 6 .... 100 years ago
is it to unite the iraqis as they always were united from the day iraq was created? i have yet to see the government actions in this regards
the only thing the government has done is to keep the us invading iraq and keep the oil flowing but the money is not being spent and the country has not seen a monument from this money, not evne water, electrcity and no infrstructure
it seems as if the iraqi government is the broker between the united states and iran and iraq is nothing but a buffer zone filled with oil and in reality as long as a green zone exists with the broker government in control that all what matters
Hi bro, thanks very much for your reply, it's awsome having people to have an intelligent debate with. It's been so long and I've missed it here.
Anyway, I totally agree with what you said my friend. I didn't mean that the Americans brought the government to be pro-Iran intentionally, I agree with you in that they got stabbed in the back. The Americans thought by playing on the "poor, victimised, oppressed masses" emotions that their media rallied-up specifically in the Shia voters, that they can get a good allie. However, the reality is all Iraqi demographics suffered equally under Saddam's regime - my family knows another Iraqi woman, whose Sunni and from near Tikrit even. Her brother, father, two uncles and elderly grandfather were all excuted by Saddam. Then there are the Kurds and Halabja. As pesimistic as it may be, in this day and age, the democratic vote can be stirred thanks to biased media.
Anyway, all this coverage and emotional built up tricked many Iraqi people into voting for a relatively hard-line government, opposite of Saddam's secularism. They thought that will mean an opposite Saddam - who will like the US and be allies, and sell out all our oil to American companies rather than nationalise it.
Unfortunately for them, Maliki was still not not there allie, as his best loyalties lie with Iran. Those governments stay in power because they have militias, doing the non-democratic dirty work. My family in Iraq were not with Maliki's coalition government. Before elections, the militia forced them all the street to stay at home. My mom's uncle was going to his friend's funeral, and was kidnapped.
Like you said, this violence allows the militias to keep stopping people voting and rigging the votes while no one notices, and they stay in power. Also, it pleases the Iranians, who are undermining the US, and "proving democracy is wrong". Less people are respecting America, so are turning to Iran in the region - just like you said, from this war, Iranian influence has sky-rocketed in the region.
The times of empires like Rome, the Caliphates and British are gone now. Now, it is all so much more subtle and low-key and quite. But it's still the same, except now it is called influences, and "allies". And yet again, we find ourselves carved between two regional powers, the West (headed by the US) and the East (Iran, supported by Russia). We either surrender to the West with a 'democracy', and let them steal all our oil and build permanent military bases all over Iraq just like with Saudi Arabia. Or we surrender to Iran, who will change Islam in Iraq, so it helps them politically and oppresses the masses into submission? Unfortunately, I don't see a way we can just be Iraq independantly - as pesimistic and pathetic of me to say - we must decide on choosing the lesser of two evils.
Sorry brother about the very long post, but I am not good at summarising my thoughts. Thanks for reading, and take care my friend.
thanks brother for all you said. Do you see the simalarities between Iraq and Lebanon both are forced into two choices
in lebanon you have syria or saudi arabia and the west and in Iraq you have either united states or iran and russia as if these countries have to pick their destiny or else they are destroyed. Why do we need a choice? why can't we make our own choices and why do we need need to lean on a country that's more powerful than us? can't we be powerful to stand on our own feet?
iraq was an independant state under saddam and all those who came before him except when it was under the british and now we have to pick between the united states or iraq. this is because the government in iraq came to power through iran and the united states and those independent iraqis either fled the country or got killed or joined arms to liberate their country
Very true bro, I totally agree with you. Just like Lebanon, we are also being forced to lean on one side or another, or be crushed by their minions fighting for influence. You are right, the best way for Iraq is to be an independant country, with alliances for our own gain. However, war after war, and endemic corruption has now made us very weak - and even the best independent Iraqis unfortunately can't make us independent. The much more powerfull bigger countries will also never let us be independent, as we simply have too much resources they want - and now that we are facing an energy crises, with oil shortages, whoever secures the last oil reserves in Iraq will have a significant lead in power in the future world.
Whoever gets our oil, can then sell it to the rest of the world for the price of gold when all the oil in Saudi Arabia runs out - that money will make them socially, militarily and economically much more powerfull - even the next super-power. Us Iraqis are very devided, and even if Shia, Sunni, Kurd, Assyrian, Turkman and everyone else joins hands-in-hand, what chance do we stand against the mighty US army on one side, and Iranian Qods Black Ops on the other side? Saudi Oil will run out in about 25 year's time, so I don't think they can all join up and impose 15-year sanctions so we become desperate and devided again like before, because they don't have time.
I think the best way for Iraq is firstly we need to stop being devided - as that makes it easier for our enemies to conquer us and use us as their puppets. Second is we must collectively choose which side we want, bot never get involved in fighting. It is not our war. If Iranians hate the Americans, and the Americans hate them - they should fight each other. Why are we all being tricked into fighting and dying for people who can't care less about us - like we are cheap soldiers or even sub-humans - it is OK for thousands of us to die, but it is tragic if one of their more valuable American or Iranian humans to die.
Its double standards and dirty very dirty politics. The russian presidents is in support of the new two countries yet Bush and the west against it, and called it interference in someone else's country.
America and the power oil countries wantto split Iraq into 3, and bless their hearts they began signing oil contracts with the Kurds. That isn't interference, that isn't change the shape of our map, the map of Iraq. And what do we have to defend our rights, and handful of prats calling themselves the government of Iraq.
We have politicians who can't read or write in arabic or any other language, so how on earth are they going to stop the thieves get away with it. Every day a tanker leaves our water filled by our oil, representing no one, heading unknown, paper work doesn't exist, whose pocket is being filled unknown again, yet no one has done anything about. Where are the british commandos where are the american powerful satalites.
Calm welcome to the site again my friend, I was really beginning to miss you and LoB. I'm so glad you now came back, with your intelligent outlook on things. Hopefully the site will come back to life now.
I totally agree with you, politics is very dirty and full of hypocrisy. Also, a similar issue was the US and NATO's backing of Kosovo splitting from Pro-Russian Serbia, because they were oppressed etc..., so they can benefit by having a pro-West/NATO country made up of land from a formerly pro-Russian country.
Russia didn't agree and cite interference and NATO not respecting territorial integrity. Now it's the other way arounf. Russia and it's allies are supporting a pro-Russia country splitting up from land of a pro-NATO/West country, and now the West is moaning about disrespect to Georgia's territorial integrity.
Even funnier still is the Russian leaders promised the West directly that if they believe it iss right to split a country for an oppressed minority, and are willing to do it, then he will also reserve that right to his nation, and do similar action. Well, now here it is.
I'm still pretty surprised to be honest that Russia's rag-tag army - who don't even have a standard uniform (some juts wear black tops/trousers even) because of a shortage of fatigues, and are reliant only old Soviet T72's and even a few T55's and BMP-1's is able to win the war so easilt. The Georgian army was US trained and equipped with some of the best weapons systems. I've even saw some very badly equiped Russian soldiers - who don't even have helmets, take the US-Style Digital Camouflage Helmets from captured or dead Georgians. Oh well, I guess numbers where on their side.
Main Page
Log In
Register
Printable Version
South Osseta Conflict - 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread