way OT but since it came up...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Pete
The slang word "boondocks" meaning jungle or out in the country comes from a Philippine Tagalog dialect word for mountain. It apparently entered the American vocabulary when we were civilizing with Krag rifles.
Yes, "boondocks" comes from the Tagalog (it's a language, not a dialect) bundok, meaning mountain or highlands.
A portion and a half of greasy adobo to whoever knows the other Tagalog word adopted into English during the "civilize 'em with a Krag" days... (there's only one other that I know of, and if someone has a third I'm seriously impressed).
I'll pass on the adobo...whatever that is
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Dayuhan
Yes, "boondocks" comes from the Tagalog (it's a language, not a dialect) bundok, meaning mountain or highlands.
A portion and a half of greasy adobo to whoever knows the other Tagalog word adopted into English during the "civilize 'em with a Krag" days... (there's only one other that I know of, and if someone has a third I'm seriously impressed).
My bet is bolo. Google was my friend.
Also liked the more modern slang terms CIA (certified Imelda admirer) and "forgets" for old person. I resemble that latter term...but at least at nearly 56 I can still chest press and fly 255 a dozen times and elliptical for half an hour at resistance level 13.
I know, you're not impressed. You just go out and climb a boondocks:rolleyes:
My 47 year old bro did that recently climbing Mt Whitney (14.505') with his wife!
The Kefaya Movement: A RAND Corp. Study Of Modern Regime Change
Keyfaya is Arab for enough! this is a link to the RAND corporation study on the usage of social media and youth groups to cause regime change. Still reading the paper but there are some very strong parallels as to what is happening in Egypt......coincendence?????:eek:
http://www.rand.org/pubs/monographs/2008/RAND_MG778.pdf
"We don't need no stinkin' confusion." Thanks for the response.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrowBat
Aramco's original involvement in exploring oil in Saudi Arabia was "business" (and not particularly successful at first); nothing special as such. It turned a "provocation" when the US upheld al-Sauds on the throne and practically turned the country into a military protectorate, in the 1940s and 1950s.
So, I must admit, I'm as confused at this analogy as Fuchs appears to be.
So let me add to the confusion. :D
ArAmCo was the nose of the Camel. No more, no less. A Camel that had FDR's full knowledge and support. Quite full. Devious old dude, he. Wanted to see British and French Colonies disappear the better for American companies to sell in those 'former' colonies and spheres of influence...
Re: The British and Soviets in Iran. True. Both those folks are soundly detested, the US is merely mildly disliked by most Iraniha. That is obviously a generalization but I believe it to be fairly accurate as such.
On Reza and Reza II the perception in Iran was, some years ago, that the US had lobbied for the old man and then been persuaded by the British to support the son and that the US did so. The 1953 coup was as you note supported by the same Clergy that did indeed steal the 1978 Revolution.
The Shah drove to increase oil prices in the 1969-71 period in an effort to convince the US to support his demand for more and better weapons which were being denied him by the then US Administration (my pet strory being the denial of sale of a dozen O-2s which the IIAF got around by ordering them from Reims Aviation...). It worked. The tale of how the Phantoms came to be sold is a cautionary tale in itself and I do not know all the details but do know US domestic politics were heavily involved and Kissinger just pushed the opportunity...
On the Johnson decision to increase support for Israel, you are of course correct and there is no question the results were much as you say and as the common knowledge hold. I did not address the US errors and shortfalls, errors and just plain stupid actions that in many cases led, quite understandably and correctly IMO, to the hostility toward us because, while germane to that hostility, I presumed they were all common knowledge and should be understood. They are of course important in context and in fairness but not important to my point of a pattern of US flawed responses. There have been many errors on both sides of this equation and they are not going to be easily forgiven. The good news is that the US attention span is so short, we'll get over it. For the ME, that is not likely to be the case -- and for the US, that should but may not be a cautionary.
Nixon waited for the Munich attack to get interested in international terrorism as a weapon. That was the point. The political maneuverings you cite were indeed provocative to the ME -- again, I did not mention US provocations that caused the, uh, rather intense dislike and resultant action that emanated from the ME. My point was that 30 years (from 2010-11 :D) of the not mentioned US provocations led to 30 years of ME provocations in an effort at retaliation (deserved, perhaps) and that the US failure to properly respond to those puts us pretty much where we are today. Let me emphasize that my idea of proper response was not and is not all military.
I think this:
Quote:
Sorry, but this sounds very much like a misinterpretation to me. Khomeini was surprised by the take-over himself, at first, though he certainly did not wait for any letters from Carter before, only two days later, sending his own thugs to take over from the students. So, he did not escalate the situation because of Carter's (undisputable) "weakness", but for his own reasons.
is not correct. Khomeini was indeed surprised (as to an extent were the Students themselves...) but he had very early notice from Brzezinski that no force would be used. Exactly what happened and his thinking, neither of us could know.
This is a valid complaint:
Quote:
...but have a strong feeling you're throwing quite a lot of unrelated events on the same pile, while ignoring the US involvement in many of them. At least you blame wrong people for attacks on the USA. I also don't agree with the premise of the US - generally - acting "lamely", or being provoked.
to a great extent, particularly in that the posts you've read on this thread do not address US stupidity in many areas (though I have mentioned them in other threads). They were omitted for brevity (heh...) not to deny or obfuscate.
The events are in fact unconnected -- but they are also a pattern. That pattern gets ignored by too many and can -- will -- lead to more US errors...
For example:
Quote:
In what way are - for example - Islamists from Egypt that turned so extreme they are not accepted even by their own "brothers" (from the Brotherhood), related to the Persians?
Sorry, not the least.
Furthermore, if you continue connecting these dots...and to bring us back to the actual topic of this thread: don't you find it at least "curious" that the people that run the AQ and became involved in actions against the US, emerged after Mubarak came to power, and since the USA began delivering extensive military aid to Egypt? Prior to that the MBs did not care the least about Washington. If you study them more closely, you find out that their motivation has nothing to do with the Iranian Shi'a, but with the Saudi Wahhabists. They turned against the USA after the US troops "violated the holy soil" of Saudi Arabia, in 1990. They were trained by the ISI in Pakistan in projects financed 50:50 by the USA and the Saudis, and ignored by the US while spreading their ideas from Marocco and Nigeria, via India to the Philippines.
I think you made my point...
A series of unrelated but flawed policies and perceptions on both sides; the ME as an entity and its multi varied polity and the US, equally multi varied; has put us where we are today. The US as the nominally more rich and seemingly powerful has an obligation IMO to be much smarter about what it does and how it does it -- but that does not remove the actions of varied actors from the ME over a period of years in a pattern that have led to yet more stupid actions.
The issue of this sub thread to me is that flawed US reactions to events trigger more events and thus the self replicating pattern becomes embedded. That cycle need to be broken.
Quote:
You also mentioned Somalia: as of 1981-1983, Somalia was a recipient of the US military aid, as a counter... Now, do you think Ethiopia or Somalia ever "provoked" the USA, or any US admin to have been "soft" to them too?
Not at all. What many in the world fail to realize is that the US government reinvents itself at 2, 4, 6 and /or 8 year intervals due to our political process. That is no excuse for blundering in policy and international relations but it is the reason for a good bit of it. Those elected on the cycles mentioned do not react to the international community -- they react to US domestic politics, period. Perhaps they should be more internationally aware (certainly many of us think so) and they are getting better due to enhanced communication (if only our news media were better -- but that's another thread) but US domestic politics drive much of our 'diplomacy.'
All the things you cite with respect to the horn of Africa are true -- but the point I was making was that Bush 41's effort to send US Troops to Somalis was flawed because we just sent targets (as did Regan in 1983...). That was exacerbated by Clinton's stupid directive to "get Aideed" and that in turn was not helped by the badly flawed tactics of JSOC and the Rangers; the upshot was that Clinton ordered a withdrawal and that withdrawal was seen by the would be desert raiders of much of the ME as a weakness. It was a weakness but it got misconstrued...
This sub thread is about misconstrueing :wry:
That said, Bob's World has some good points with which I agree also.
And that sums it all up rather neatly and accurately...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
CrowBat
That's the essence - also that of what's currently going on in Egypt. Stay tunned, the "Super Bowl match" between the teams of "Egyptian Opposition" led by coaches Obama and Clinton on one side, vs. "Mubarak", led by coaches Netanyahu and AIPAC on the other, is going to be continued "right after this"....
Yet one can hope we'll get a bit smarter.
Or, more to the point, hope that one team is not playing US football with a poor defensive line while the other is aiming for the FIFA World Cup and has an erratic midfield winger or two... :wry:
It's already very interesting to watch...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Assuming that the domino theory applies to the Arab world, it could become very, very interesting to see how the Europeans behave.
.
The Europeans have been, and are still busy in the Arab world. I know a bit about Iraq, so let's look there...:wry:
Boris Bollion of France has been working hard in Iraq and is now off to Tunisia. He was covering down on a couple of locations while in Iraq
Quote:
Outre celui de Bagdad, il existe un autre consulat général de France en Irak, basé à Erbil.
The official French website to Iraq
Dirk Niebel of Germany, and another hard worker, recently had an unexpected ~$2,500 expense while in Baghdad.
Quote:
Entwicklungshilfeminister Dirk Niebel (FDP) ist zwei Stunden am Bagdader Flughafen festgehalten worden. Der Weiterflug wurde mit Geld erkauft.
Murat Ozcelik of Turkey, another hard worker, has been busy in Iraq as well.
Quote:
The deal between Turkey’s Calik Enerji and the Iraqi Electricity Ministry is for the construction of the 1,250 megawatt al-Hayrat [Khayrat?] plant in Karbala.
Calik Holding CEO, Ahmet Calik, and Iraq’s Deputy Electricity Minister, Salam Kazzaz, penned the agreement in a ceremony in Baghdad with the participation of Iraqi Deputy Premier for Energy, Hussain al-Shahristani, and Turkey’s Ambassador to Iraq, Murat Ozcelik.
It's a dynamic and interesting place, just like always.
And here I thought you were a deeds and words guy...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Turkey isn't a European country, so that's a different story. Turks, Persians (Iran), northern Black African countries and Pakistan need to reassess their relations with the Arab region as well, but I focused on Europe and I believe that European countries have very different situations in regard to Arab countries than Turkey.
What??!!! Turkey is not European? Do you mean that you guys have just been stringing them along since 1963? I am stunned, just stunned!!! Na, so was! :eek: :rolleyes:
Quote:
Turkey's application to accede to the European Union was made on 14 April 1987. Turkey has been an associate member of the European Union (EU) and its predecessors since 1963.[2] After the ten founding members, Turkey was one of the first countries to become a member of the Council of Europe in 1949, and was also a founding member of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) in 1961[3] and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) in 1973. The country has also been an associate member of the Western European Union since 1992, and is a part of the "Western Europe" branch of the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations. Turkey signed a Customs Union agreement with the EU in 1995 and was officially recognised as a candidate for full membership on 12 December 1999, at the Helsinki summit of the European Council. Negotiations were started on 3 October 2005, and the process, should it be in Turkey's favour, is likely to take at least a decade to complete.[4] The membership bid has become a major controversy of the ongoing enlargement of the European Union.[5]
P.S.
Hopefully the Union of the Mediterranean (formerly known as the Mediterranean Union ala Sarkozy) is still supported by at least the EU's Diplomatic Corps (the European External Action Service) as vehicle for advocating for Democracy....
Quote:
The Union for the Mediterranean (UfM) is a multilateral partnership that encompasses 43 countries from Europe and the Mediterranean Basin: the 27 member states of the European Union and 16 Mediterranean partner countries from North Africa, the Middle East and the Balkans. It was created in July 2008 as a relaunched Euro-Mediterranean Partnership (the Barcelona Process) in 2008, when a plan to create an autonomous Mediterranean Union was dropped. The Union has the aim of promoting stability and prosperity throughout the Mediterranean region.
Quote:
The European External Action Service (EEAS or EAS) is a unique European Union (EU) department[2] that was established following the entry into force of the Treaty of Lisbon on 1 December 2009. It was formally launched on 1 December 2010[3] and serves as a foreign ministry and diplomatic corps for the EU, implementing the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy and other areas of the EU's external representation. The EEAS is under the authority of the High Representative for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy (HR), a post also created by the Treaty of Lisbon, whom it assists.
The EEAS manages the EU's response to crises, has intelligence capabilities and cooperates with the Commission in areas which it shares competence with. However, although the High Representative and the EEAS can propose and implement policy, it will not make it as that role is left to the Foreign Affairs Council which the High Representative chairs.[2][4]