Phuoc Long Redux

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

and if the Kurds outlive their usefulness will they be allowed in?

The Kurds are not Montagnards or Hmong.

While the US strongly encouraged the Kurds to rise up against Saddam Hussein post Desert Storm, actual US support for the Kurdish uprising was limited mostly to words, humanitarian aid, and a no fly zone under which Saddam's forces executed some nasty reprisals while consolidating control.

Fast forward 20+ years and the only areas where stability and security seem to consistently exist in what is known as Iraq is Kurdistan.

I do wonder what the conversations must have been like during that time for President Bush Senior immediately following the successful completion of Desert Storm.

Was the vocal support for a Kurdish uprising to depose Saddam by President Bush premature when someone probably figured out that a deposed and unstable Iraq would be vulnerable to Iranian influence, much like post 2003?

[lakedaemonian]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Would you care to draw me a boundary on a map between "Western" and "Eastern". Dotted or solid, either will do...

[And those who do not understand the profound influence that specific religions have played in determining those two connotations that I used will have great difficulty understanding much of what is going on in the greater Middle East. There are few things I find more amusing than a fiercely secular journalist (and we have a lot of those here in Canada) trying to explain events in the Middle East to my fellow citizens]

We should probably the majority of Africa to that map as well.

The good news for the US, is that for both the Middle East and Africa the UK and France bear much of that blame.

[jk]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

We should probably the majority of Africa to that map as well.

The good news for the US, is that for both the Middle East and Africa the UK and France bear much of that blame.

does anyone here know the history of the lines that the uk and france drew to define the "countries" of the middle east?
i don't, though if i have time i will try to look into it. my first reaction is to think that the lines drawn were stupid and arbitrary, and the source of the civil wars that have engulfed, or are ready to engulf, every country in the levant. my second thought, however, is that perhaps that was the point. did the uk and france deliberately set the boundaries to prevent the emergence of any possible legitimate and cohesive governments, all the better to allow for post-colonial manipulation?

[Raz]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Was the vocal support for a Kurdish uprising to depose Saddam by President Bush premature when someone probably figured out that a deposed and unstable Iraq would be vulnerable to Iranian influence, much like post 2003?

"W" wasn't the buffoon the US media made him out to be. He was worse.

Surrounding himself with NeoCon nitwits who bolstered his swaggering Texas ego, he was not only going to get the man "who tried to kill my dad", but he would 'transform the Middle East'. I doubt he even knew who T. E. Lawrence was and didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

These NeoCon fools didn't listen to the Saudis (who almost begged them NOT to invade Iraq) nor did they understand that the Iranians (Persians) had been trying to control the entire Middle East since the time of Xerxes. We are paying for their ignorance and arrogance.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

[EJ]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

"W" wasn't the buffoon the US media made him out to be. He was worse.

Surrounding himself with NeoCon nitwits who bolstered his swaggering Texas ego, he was not only going to get the man "who tried to kill my dad", but he would 'transform the Middle East'. I doubt he even knew who T. E. Lawrence was and didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

These NeoCon fools didn't listen to the Saudis (who almost begged them NOT to invade Iraq) nor did they understand that the Iranians (Persians) had been trying to control the entire Middle East since the time of Xerxes. We are paying for their ignorance and arrogance.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Here's what I can say about history: It is the inscrutable language used by the dead to speak to the deaf.

[Slimprofits]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

does anyone here know the history of the lines that the uk and france drew to define the "countries" of the middle east?

Sykes-Picot Agreement - 1916

full text ~ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp


British - French Oil Agreement (San Remo) - 1920

http://www.answers.com/topic/british...-oil-agreement

[thriftyandboringinohio]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

does anyone here know the history of the lines that the uk and france drew to define the "countries" of the middle east?...

I think about that from time to time, jk, and wonder.

I imagine a British officer in a pith helmet and a walrus mustache under a pavilion tent in the desert, with a map on a table.
He says " You're quite right Geoffrey, now that our regiment is leaving we will need to draw some new borders. It should not be that difficult."
"the Saud family has always ruled this region, and the Oman's over here."
"Hubert, do I recall that you said the Persians prefer to be called Iran, and they have this territory here?"
"Have them draw up some new maps with these lines, Geoffrey."
"We've sorted that out, now its time for tea."

[EJ]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Sykes-Picot Agreement - 1916

full text ~ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/sykes.asp


British - French Oil Agreement (San Remo) - 1920

http://www.answers.com/topic/british...-oil-agreement

Regarding the British - French Oil Agreement (San Remo) of 1920, it appears that the Russians have been playing the spoiler with the west for quite some time:

"In its quest to have control over Iraq, the British - French Agreement - known also as the San Remo Agreement - was preceded by several relevant developments. The most important one was the conclusion of the secret 1916 Sykes-Picot Agreement by Britain, France, and Russia, which divided the spheres of influence over Syria and Iraq, the latter of which would be under the domain of the British. In fact, the French - British Agreement was simply a formulation of what had been secretly agreed. Following the communist revolution in 1917, terms of the Sykes-Picot Agreement were revealed by Moscow in order to embarrass both England and France and to give a push to Arab revolt and nationalism."

Ninety seven years later they're still at it.

[ProdigyofZen]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Where is Saladin when you need him.....

[jk]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

.

anyone know the history of these spheres of interest for the uk, france and russia? it's one thing to know that the powers of the time divided up the area as they did among themselves - awaiting the spoils of the defeat of the ottomans. but it's another thing to know why they did it the way they did.

it makes sense that the russians would be interested in territory contiguous with its own -- still are, e.g. crimea and eastern ukraine. but it seems arbitrary that the brits got the southern swath and the french the more northern and mediterranean. i suppose the british liked having ports on the gulf, but it's not clear to me that this is sufficient explanation. i just learned that the british first lost a big battle to the ottoman turks in the area now known as iraq, but then eventually captured baghdad. but i still can't quite figure out why that was where they wanted to fight. i don't think the oil in the area was developed yet.

here's an illuminating snip:

From 1763 until 1971, the British Empire maintained varying degrees of political control over some of the Persian Gulf states, including the United Arab Emirates (originally called the Trucial States)^[24][25] and at various times Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, and Qatar through the British Residency of the Persian Gulf.

the 1763 date is suggestive. the british east india company operated from 1600 forward, and the british raj officially began in 1858. so i could see the gulf states playing a role in linking india back to capetown. i guess that's the background, anyway. fwiw.

and then when they drew the boundaries they did, within the areas under their control, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? or, what? were they thinking?

[Slimprofits]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

but it seems arbitrary that the brits got the southern swath and the french the more northern and mediterranean. i suppose the british liked having ports on the gulf, but it's not clear to me that this is sufficient explanation.

the British wanted the oil and the French weren't as of yet turned on to it?

edit: okay obviously that is ridiculous.

Yes the oil was the target. Are you asking why the French agreed to this? I think you look at who was in the position of strength (and in what order) at the negotiating table after WWI.

According to Wiliam Engdahl in A Century of War, "beginning in 1882, Britain's Admiral Lord Fisher, then Captain Fisher, argued to anyone in the British establishment who would listen that Britain must convert its naval fleet from coal-fired propulsion to oil. Since 1870, Russian steamers on the Caspian Sea had burned a heavy fuel oil the Russians called 'mazut'." Elsewhere..."efforts to pass legislation in the Berlin Reichstag in 1912-13 to establish a German state-owned company to develop and run the new found oil resources (between Mosul and Baghdad) independently of the American Rockefeller combine were stalled and delayed..."

[EJ]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

anyone know the history of these spheres of interest for the uk, france and russia? it's one thing to know that the powers of the time divided up the area as they did among themselves - awaiting the spoils of the defeat of the ottomans. but it's another thing to know why they did it the way they did.

it makes sense that the russians would be interested in territory contiguous with its own -- still are, e.g. crimea and eastern ukraine. but it seems arbitrary that the brits got the southern swath and the french the more northern and mediterranean. i suppose the british liked having ports on the gulf, but it's not clear to me that this is sufficient explanation. i just learned that the british first lost a big battle to the ottoman turks in the area now known as iraq, but then eventually captured baghdad. but i still can't quite figure out why that was where they wanted to fight. i don't think the oil in the area was developed yet.

here's an illuminating snip:



the 1763 date is suggestive. the british east india company operated from 1600 forward, and the british raj officially began in 1858. so i could see the gulf states playing a role in linking india back to capetown. i guess that's the background, anyway. fwiw.

and then when they drew the boundaries they did, within the areas under their control, WHAT WERE THEY THINKING? or, what? were they thinking?

"The agreement also gave the British permanent control over any entity exploiting Mesopotamian oil, including the Turkish Petroleum Company (TPC), which was established with the successful manipulation of the Armenian businessman Calouste Gulbenkian. Mesopotamia was strategically important to the British because of its military and commercial routes to India. With its decision before World War I to replace coal with oil as the main source of energy for its naval fleet, Britain planned to control the possible sources of the Iraqi oil even before the TPC was established in 1912. Even though Iraq became a British mandate in 1920, there was no guarantee that TPC was to be given a concession for oil exploration in Iraq. Complications arose from terms of the San Remo Agreement, which stipulated that Iraq could hold 20 percent interest in TPC if it invested. In spite of Iraq's objection, it was decided that Iraq would receive a flat fee as royalties per ton payable in British pounds, but with a gold clause, meaning in units of gold per pound on the day of the agreement. Iraq meant to safeguard the future payments it receives from royalties from possible devaluations of the pound. TPC won the oil exploration concession in Iraq in 1925, and the discovery of oil in the vicinity of Kirkuk occurred on 15 October 1927. TPC was renamed Iraq Petroleum Company (IPC) in 1929."

Read more: http://www.answers.com/topic/british...#ixzz34vPxW295

[Mega]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

YYEEESSS.............so do you think this will die out or are we (with Russia help) get plenty hot, very quick?

After all the US HAS been playing in Russian front garden, only a matter of time till Putin "Played" them..AGAIN!
Mike

[Woodsman]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

"W" wasn't the buffoon the US media made him out to be. He was worse.

Surrounding himself with NeoCon nitwits who bolstered his swaggering Texas ego, he was not only going to get the man "who tried to kill my dad", but he would 'transform the Middle East'. I doubt he even knew who T. E. Lawrence was and didn't know the difference between a Sunni and a Shia.

These NeoCon fools didn't listen to the Saudis (who almost begged them NOT to invade Iraq) nor did they understand that the Iranians (Persians) had been trying to control the entire Middle East since the time of Xerxes. We are paying for their ignorance and arrogance.

"We learn from history that we do not learn from history."

Raz, you're being most uncharitable here. There was one neocon who called it on the nose.

In 1994 he accurately predicted the chaos he would help create nine years later.

[GRG55]

Re: Phuoc Long Redux

Raz, you're being most uncharitable here. There was one neocon who called it on the nose.

In 1994 he accurately predicted the chaos he would help create nine years later.

In 1994 we all thought Cheney could shoot straight. Subsequent events showed all of us, including Whittington, that was a dangerous assumption...