Young Master Smeet
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/download/Xi_Jinping’s_report_at_19th_CPC_National_Congress.pdf
Well I can find the stuff about 2035, but nothing about the next century, maybe you can have better luck (or maybe Xinhua are anti-socialist falsifiers?)
I’m curious about this full communism by the time we’re all dead that TS keeps quoting, does he have anything resembling an official source for that? I can’t find one.
Oh, isn’t he just adorable?
“The Government of the German Reich and the Government of the U.S.S.R. determine as the boundary of their respective national interests in the territory of the former Polish state the line marked on the attached map, which shall be described in more detail in a supplementary protocol.” (My emphasis added).
“The necessary reorganization of public administration will be effected in the areas west of the line specified in article I by the Government of the German Reich, in the areas east of this line by the Government of the U.S.S.R.”
“Both parties will tolerate in their territories no Polish agitation which affects the territories of the other party. They will suppress in their territories all beginnings of such agitation and inform each other concerning suitable measures for this purpose.”
“As soon as the Government of the U.S.S.R. shall take special measures on Lithuanian territory to protect its interests, the present German-Lithuanian border, for the purpose of a natural and simple boundary delineation, shall be rectified in such a way that the Lithuanian territory situated to the southwest of the line marked on the attached map should fall to Germany.
“Further it is declared that the economic agreements now in force between Germany and Lithuania shall not be affected by the measures of the Soviet Union referred to above.”
It’s there in the primary sources.
And this line: “This protocol shall be treated by both parties as strictly secret.”
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/addsepro.aspI dunno, I think that means the secret protocol must have actually been a secret.
I think a government fleeing into exile does not extinguish the existence of a country, in anyplace other than the most convoluted of apologetics. The Sovs imposed a government on a people by hostile means and carved up a hegemonic interested, irrespective of the wishes or preferences of the people in those lands. Some might call that imperialism.
The stuff about the difference between nationalism and patriotism is pure humpty-dumpty. He just wants to be a patriot while still being able to attack the SNP, there is no intellectual weight at all in the whole document, it’s come out of a random soundbite generator.
International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1944-)
Vol. 87, No. 3 (May 2011), pp. 709-715 (7 pages)“In 1989 the Soviet authorities officially denounced the Molotov—Ribbentrop pact of August 1939 as illegal and void and for the first time admitted the existence of a secret protocol providing for a division on territorial spheres of influence.”
“the full text of the German-Soviet Friendship Treaty of 28 September, demarcating the final frontier between the two invading powers [and the] entirely separate joint declaration of the same date which
referred to the ‘dissolution of the Polish State’ and called on Britain and France to conduct peace talks with Germany. Should they fail to do so, the statement went on, then this would prove that Britain and France ‘bore the responsibility for the continuation of the war”But, blame where blame is due:
“it may be mentioned that in August 1941, Britain and the Soviet Union jointly invaded and occupied Iran, partly in order to pre-empt a possible Nazi seizure of its strategically vital oil fields (a fact more widely remembered in Iran than in the West.)”Stalin was a gangster, he played a gangster’s game.
Of course, this being the 21st Century, we can read the German-Soviet Friendship pact:
https://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/gsbound.asp(True Scotsman doesn’t trust Wikisources, but I hope he’ll forgive this source for the map annexed to the pact:
)“In recent years, China has introduced a raft of measures to accelerate opening-up and foster a market-oriented, law-based and internationalized business environment, in a bid to better accommodate overseas investors.”
“In the first eight months of this year, Chinese exports to the United States, rather than falling, expanded 22.7 percent year on year, according to official data.”
“With a large market, complete industrial chain and favorable business environment, China has become a “strong magnetic field” for foreign investment.”
“”If American companies are prevented from operating in China, our competitors will be able to take advantage of China’s economies of scale and rapid adoption of technology to outcompete U.S. companies everywhere else, including in our home market,” said Craig Allen, president of the U.S.-China Business Council.”
I’ve mislaid the source, but I’m sure I can find it. But the picture painted is of a country fully integrated into the world capitalist order, seeking investment by and from capitalists. I’m sure, though, these must just be pro-capitalist lies, right?
Nothing from Chomsky yet, but here’s what he said in May
“Department of Defense clarified that 2,500 troops would leave Afghanistan by September 11. In a March 14 article, meanwhile, the New York Times had noted that the U.S. has 3,500 troops in Afghanistan even though “[p]ublicly, 2,500 U.S. troops are said to be in the country.” The undercount by the Pentagon is obscurantism. A report by the Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Sustainment, furthermore, noted that the United States has about 16,000 contractors on the ground in Afghanistan. They provide a variety of services, which most likely include military support. None of these contractors—or the additional undisclosed 1,000 U.S. troops—are slated for withdrawal, nor will aerial bombardment—including drone strikes—end, and there will be no end to special forces missions either.”
Looks like he’s wrong on this: but maybe that was the plan. But still, i think this is suggestive: “No lessons have been learned from this history. The U.S. will “withdraw,” but will also leave behind its assets to checkmate China and Russia. These geopolitical considerations eclipse any concern for the Afghan people.”
In simple terms, continued instability is the US interest. I doubt China will go into Kabul, but I think they will secure their border and maybe try to prevent any aid to the Uighurs.
The real British attitude to Afghan refugees
A good article, and worth a read. Something that we’ve not heard much about is the Brereton report “The report found evidence of 39 murders of civilians and prisoners by (or at the instruction of) members of the Australian special forces, which were subsequently covered up by ADF personnel.[5][6][7] The report stated 25 ADF personnel were involved in the killings, including those who were “accessories” to the incident. Some of those believed to be involved were still serving with the ADF.[8] The unlawful killings discussed by the report began in 2009, with most occurring in 2012 and 2013.[9]”
The law has been changed here to prevent a similar report happening, or the guilty being held to account. 39 murdered people is the minimum of crimes committed by the Nato forces.
I believe the Taleban control the passes into Afghanistan, so they’ll be able to collect duty on all imports/exports (especially if they continue the opium trade, which is a bargaining chip they retain).
Just imagine if instead of the war, the Nato allies had spent $2.2 Trillion buying wheat from Afghanistan over 20 years.: for all those emoting in the House of Commons about how much they care for Afghans, that would truly have changed the society there.
Alan,
the rank and file of the IS forces may have been recruited from the MB, but the core command/control and expertise was former regime officers, perhaps activating a stay behind operation. They provided the know-how, IS were not your usual ragtag bunch.
In that context, subsistence and personal survival played a huge part, but, as I think ALB has noted, there are regional/tribal differences and they may find reflection in remnant parts of the Afghan army. An ideology can always be found when it is needed.
I’m just looking at this as a possible ‘moderating’ influence.
A bit of perspective: at the end of the Troubles, the IRA had 300 men ‘in the field’ with about another 450 in support (compare with the Taliban’s 75,000). By the end of the Troubles, the British had about 17,000 troops in the six counties, and they couldn’t suppress the IRA.
Now, the question is, have the 300,000 Afghan Army troops gone away, or gone to the Taliban, to what extent could a stay behind force limit Taliban operations in the same way the IRA did.
Let’s remember, the core of ISIS was former Ba’athist officers who’d been put out of a job. The Taliban need to assimilate the Afghan National Army, especially it’s officers.
The rumours seem to be circulating that the Afghan army was basically ordered to stand down; and that the top government officials have been flying with suitcases stuffed with dollars.
Biden keeps repeating that the Afghan army numbered 300,000, so there is a big question of how a well equipped well paid for army of that size could evaporate so quickly.
I’ve seen analysis that neither the Taliban nor the Afghan army really existed, but the locals are just taking the cash: the phrase there were cousins on both sides seems to resonate.
Just because Western rivals are making propaganda out of atrocity, doesn’t mean atrocities aren’t being committed:
“In 2014, just over 200,000 IUDs were inserted in Xinjiang. By 2018, that figure had increased more than sixty percent to nearly 330,000 IUDs, with this rise taking place at a time when everywhere else in China, Han women were getting the devices removed.41 In 2018, eighty percent of all IUD insertions in China were performed in Xinjiang despite the region accounting for just 1.8 percent of China’s population.42
“According to its own budget documents, the Xinjiang government invested tens of millions of dollars into a birth control surgery programme from 2016 onwards, including the provision of community cash incentives for women to get sterilized.43 This has led to sterilization rates rising seven-fold in Xinjiang between 2016 and 2018, to more than 60,000 procedures; again, this occurred precisely when sterilizations are at a record low in other regions of China.44 While the rate of sterilization nationally continued to gently fall from forty to around thirty five women per 100,000, in Xinjiang it increased sharply from thirty to around 245 women per 100,000.45 The city of Khotän in the Uyghur-dominant southwest budgeted for 14,872 sterilizations in 2019, accounting for more than thirty four per cent of all married women of childbearing age.”
(Finley, again).
It does seem to be an uneven application of the child bearing policies of China.
I think there are two issues: firstly, the raw numbers of humans affected (a by-product of this colonial endeavour happening under a greater world population than, say, the genocides in Australia), and secondly, the planned and deliberate character (again, most previous genocides have tended to be sotto voce, unofficial, and, usually, ad hoc).
