Iraq (current news/events)

[Dwarden 1125]

very nice dispatch ...

it seems there are fights regulary with the ISIS vs Kurdish forces http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=97f_1402998435

older news http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bb4_1402768627

there is like between 6-7 millions citizens in the (older borders, now for sure more due to the expansion of security buffer and emigrants leaving the no-security areas)

way newer news http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=28f_1403006709

Edited June 17, 2014 by Dwarden

[mistyronin 1181]

So first Al Maliki select the senior officers according to their sect ( only Shia and that recognize his power ) instead of their qualifications, and then he complains and fire them...

( BBC ) Iraq conflict: PM fires senior officers over rebel advance

Iraqi PM Nouri Maliki has fired senior officers for failing to halt a sweeping advance by Sunni Islamist rebels.

Four army commanders were dismissed for failing to perform "their national duty", a government statement said on Tuesday.

Iraqi forces have been engaged in heavy clashes with the rebels who have seized several key cities in the past week.

[ProfTournesol 956]

How can half a division of ISIL irregular troops rout several divisions of Iraki regular soldiers, trained and heavily equiped by the US ?

[Xalteva 10]

How can half a division of ISIL irregular troops rout several divisions of Iraki regular soldiers, trained and heavily equiped by the US ?

Because,ISIS is just a part of what's fighting the iraqi army ! you tend to forget people there fighting to free their country of the corrupted gov ! ISIS is not part of these guys!

ISIS are the terrorist,that foment the civil war by mudering chia people ! it's quite a mess there ...

Edited June 17, 2014 by Xalteva

[maturin 12]

How can half a division of ISIL irregular troops rout several divisions of Iraki regular soldiers, trained and heavily equiped by the US ?

Motivation is 95% of combat.

IMO that wouldn't be that bad. Personally I dislike the Imperialist origin artificial states, they only create wars ( British were professionals on doing that ): India vs Pakistan. Israel vs Palestine. etc.

Not to be harsh, but that is naive in the extreme.

Of course we all abhor the countless conflicts caused by drawing arbitrary borders on maps... but the idea that there exists some alternate set of ideal borders that correspond to national, ethnic and sectarian boundaries is a dangerous fairy tale. Bosnia should have taught us all that, and Ukraine is just re-telling the story. There is no line that can be drawn that will suffice. Most of the world's 'artificial states' can't be split up into homogenous units that would be any more peaceful or viable than the hastily conglomerated whole. Why? Because the idea of ethnic and national identities are not much removed from fairy tales to begin with. Force millions of people living their lives on a complex spectrum of habits and cultural characteristics to choose column A or B and there will be blood.

The idea that Iraq can be divided into three optimal pieces given some impartial, technocratic arbitrator is very much imperialist thinking to begin with. And of course no country could ever divide itself in an objective fashion. Iraq splitting up will be far more bloody than Iraq in one piece. It would be like amputating a patient without anesthetic in a pit of hyenas, with half a dozen competing surgeons all sawing away.

Once the process of eviscerating communities and centuries-old social compacts is complete, and once the ethnic cleansing and population exchanges (assuming no all-out war) calms down, then yes, you should have a more stable set of countries. But it's a lot of brutality for very little justice.

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[nodunit 397]

Yep, you could have the most well trained and equipped army in the world but if they lack the will then its all for naught, demoralize the troops and they will panic, maybe even retreat.

[mistyronin 1181]

the idea that there exists some alternate set of ideal borders that correspond to national, ethnic and sectarian boundaries is a dangerous fairy tale.

I didn't said that.

I said: "Personally I dislike the Imperialist origin artificial states".

And that's mainly because certain imperialist powers during the colonisation era played creating opposing factions so it would be easy to conquer and control them ( British and Spanish were specially good at it... if not how a few thousand Spanish could invade most of Central and South America with millions of natives ).

During the post-colonisation, they created this artificial states as some sort of "scorched earth" tactic, to keep them weak and dependant on the former metropolis.

Some of them are one of the origins of nowadays conflicts, like Bosnia created by the Austro-Hungar Empire and Ukraine created by the Imperial Russia ( in this last case even committing genocides to populate them with Russian ethnics so they could keep better control ).

And of course some countries can live in peace with different ethnicities living together ( look Switzerland ). But IMO usually the best solution is one country for one nation/culture, because that prevents most frictions ( which is what Europe for example has been evolving this last 150 years ), because if not usually the biggest / strongest nation tries to remove the others. Look for instance in Spain, where Castile has been bullying Catalonia, Euskadi and Galicia for centuries, even nowadays the Education minister says that they must turn them Castilians ( I had lived there for enough years to see how the central government spread hate against everyone no Castilian ).

[maturin 12]

I didn't said that.

I know, but it's usually implied when people bemoan the arbitrary drawing of borders. No one ever points out that drawing 'accurate' borders is rarely feasible to begin with.

And you did say that Iraq would be better off in three pieces, so you must contend that suitable borders could exist there. I doubt that it's worth trying to realize such a project, throwing arbitrary border on top of arbitrary border.

But IMO usually the best solution is one country for one nation/culture, because that prevents most frictions

That's the most frictionless arrangement for a country, agreed. But it's not a solution for situations where national homogeneity doesn't exist... not unless you're advocating ethnic cleansing, and probably genocide and fascism. Europe didn't 'evolve' to the point of nation states so much as the forces unleashed by nationalism ended up massacring sixty or seventy million people. Only a few lucky countries were able to consolidate national cultures using education and socialization instead of large-scale violence. For the others... well, the post-war Allies employed ethnic cleansing even after fascism was defeated.

Bosnia created by the Austro-Hungar Empire and Ukraine created by the Imperial Russia

Neither of those are particularly good examples. No one drew Balkan borders in order to keep the Yugoslavs quiescent; they drew where the advance of their armies ended. There the imperial powers were fighting over territory, and the ethnicities were too mixed to ever create homogenous federal units.

And there wasn't really any Ukraine at all in Imperial Russia. Modern Ukraine is a Soviet creation, and was in no way a case of divide-and-conquer because Soviet governance was more harmonious than that. Most national conflict was suppressed entirely, so it wasn't a viable tactic for keeping the populace down. The same actually goes for most of the 'bad' borders in the Caucasus. Westerners just assume bad faith on the part of the Bolsheviks. The Soviets were searching for the holy grail of 'accurate' borders based on ethnological analysis of local cultures far more often than they tried to divide and conquer. You really don't need to give Karabakh to Azerbaijan to keep such tiny proto-countries in line, for example.

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[negah 26]

The concept of one nation one country is no longer existant since the ancient times, when everyone warred with each other and some nation has swallowed others leading to first empires (e.g. ancient Egypt, Roman Republic/Empire).

I admit today it is much easier to be a little country and do not fear an invasion. Examples are Switzerland and countless european city states. Still you must be either not worth the trouble of conquering, or have some powerful friends or else you'll have the same fate as Afghanistan, Iraq, Georgia, Lybia and Ukraine just to name the more recent ones. Looking back at the 20th century, we see that not much has changed since the ancient times/middle-age/early-/late-modern periods, just the reasons to start a war and the outcome of such wars (mostly becoming a puppet state/protextorate instead of occupation and inclusion into conqueror's territory). So if we go back to "one nation - one country" phase, we might as well restart our history and change nothing.

Edited June 18, 2014 by negah

[mistyronin 1181]

No one ever points out that drawing 'accurate' borders is rarely feasible to begin with.

I agree with you in this point. It's practically impossible to draw proper borders, because nations/ethnicities doesn't clearly sit in one place, but spread in different degrees.

And you did say that Iraq would be better off in three pieces, so you must contend that suitable borders could exist there. I doubt that it's worth trying to realize such a project, throwing arbitrary border on top of arbitrary border.

Well, as most of borders are drawn in wars ( although I prefer when people can vote peacefully, but it's not always possible ). What I would do in Iraq, is to not intervene and prevent any other third party to intervene. IMO no side it's strong enough to conquer the others, so they would end more or less in three sides.

But it's not a solution for situations where national homogeneity doesn't exist...

Agree. But that is a rare case, to not have a predominant ethnicity in a territory. In that case a democratic referendum should be the solution if possible.

Europe didn't 'evolve' to the point of nation states so much as the forces unleashed by nationalism ended up massacring sixty or seventy million people.

I don't agree. But it depends what do you understand by nationalism. Pure nationalism means one nation one country ( which hasn't caused million of dead people ). Extreme nationalism or Imperialism is when is thought that one nation is way better than the others so it deserve to rule them ( like the Manifest Destiny, the Roman Empire, the Russian Empire, the Nazism, etc. ).

Most of the countries in Europe were born after the big powers fought themselves so much, that ended so weak that couldn't prevent the independence of their subdued nations ( Ireland partially, Poland, Finland, Baltics, Turkey, Austria and Hungary, etc. ).

Neither of those are particularly good examples. No one drew Balkan borders in order to keep the Yugoslavs quiescent; they drew where the advance of their armies ended. There the imperial powers were fighting over territory, and the ethnicities were too mixed to ever create homogeneous federal units.

In fact yes, it was the change from the medieval/feudal era where the monarchies controlled a huge amount of nations ruled each own by their own rules with a huge degree of autonomy to the totalitarian monarchies, where the king forced a centralist nation among the others ( good example are the House of Bourbon, with more success in France with Louis XIV and less in the Spanish Monarchy with Philip the V and the decrees of New Plant ).

---------- Post added at 12:37 ---------- Previous post was at 12:25 ----------

The more the merrier...

( Al Jazeera ) Kurdish-Turkmen tension on the rise in Kirkuk

Wearing a flak jacket with a pistol on his hip, the president of the Iraqi Turkmen Front (ITF), Arshad Salihi, announced yesterday the mobilisation of a new Turkmen militia in the city of Kirkuk, saying that if the Kurdish Peshmerga forces "refuse to return Kirkuk [to the Iraqi government] we will fight back".

[maturin 12]

Pure nationalism means one nation one country ( which hasn't caused million of dead people ).

Of course it has. Fascism is the clearest example of using violence to bring about the ideal of 'one nation, one state.' Just what do you think the Holocaust was? There were fascist parties all over Europe, and they had no interest in being ruled by It was about purifying the nation, first and foremost inside its own borders. Same with the Armenian Genocide. The national minority had to be expunged so that one nation could dominate. The same principle applied in the Yugoslav ethnic cleansing campaigns. One people in one piece of territory.

The Nazis were of course imperialists, but the Yugoslavs and Turks would never dream of trying to annex territories outside their perceived national homelands. Even radical nationalism doesn't have to believe in its own superiority, just its own uniqueness and its right to independence and pre-eminence in its own state. The mass national violence of the 20th century is basically the process of post-imperial or heterogeneous states trying to rapidly and bloodily turn themselves into nation states, horrifically mimicking the status quo that developed in America, France or England over a greater period of time, with violence that was more systemic than acute, or carried out in earlier centuries.

Extreme nationalism or Imperialism

Those are not often the same thing. There was nothing nationalist about the Hapsburg or Ottoman Empires. They were pre-national. Even in Russia, no one had any problem with being ruled by a German, or having the direct descendants of Turkish Khans in the nobility, Caucasians in the bureaucracy, or having a Ukrainian writer at the pinnacle of your literary culture.

What I would do in Iraq, is to not intervene and prevent any other third party to intervene. IMO no side it's strong enough to conquer the others, so they would end more or less in three sides.

So a bloody stalemate, basically. Once the limbs tear apart the body that holds them together, there will be four distinct pieces of meat remaining.

The U.S. would have to be rather deeply involved to prevent Iran and Saudi Arabia from intervening. But in any case, I think that the U.S. should start putting major pressure on al-Maliki. If he wants outside support to help save his government, he needs to cease his sectarian politics (that's what started this crisis, along with Syria) and restore a government and army that aren't exclusively made up of his Shia cronies. His name is dirt, so someone needs to start talking and making promises to the Sunni in Anbar and the Kurds and Turkmen, to try and dissuade them from dismembering the country and sparking more violence. No one needs a three or even four-sided civil war. Especially one that will doubtless extend the conflict in Syria further, while setting Turkish Kurdistan on fire again. And then there's the Gulf, as the disgruntled Saudis get more and more fed-up with Iran.

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[mistyronin 1181]

Of course it has. Fascism is the clearest example of using violence to bring about the ideal of 'one nation, one state.' Just what do you think the Holocaust was? There were fascist parties all over Europe, and they had no interest in being ruled by It was about purifying the nation, first and foremost inside its own borders. Same with the Armenian Genocide. The national minority had to be expunged so that one nation could dominate. The same principle applied in the Yugoslav ethnic cleansing campaigns. One people in one piece of territory.

There is no connexion between the believe of one nation and one country ( traditional nationalism ) with the believe that one nation is better than the others ( as I told you that would be a extreme and radical view of the nationalism that was the main reason of all the imperialism and ethnic cleansing ).

Is the same if you say that Islamism is the same as Jihadism.

In fact your words are quite offensive, you are saying that the Scottish, Catalans, Basques, etc. that want the independence of their nation to protect their culture are the same as the nazis that perpetrated the holocaust. Also you are also calling that all to the past nationalists that fought for the independence of their countries... ( Polish, Norwegians, Finns, etc. ).

The Nazis were of course imperialists, but the Yugoslavs and Turks would never dream of trying to annex territories outside their perceived national homelands.

Don't agree. Turks precisely invaded and annexed part of Cyprus and also tried to invade parts of the Iraqi Kurdistan in 2008.

And in Yugoslavia it was the Serbian Imperialism that wanted to build the Greater Serbia that has parts in a lot of countries ( Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, etc. ).

Edited June 18, 2014 by MistyRonin

[maturin 12]

There is no connexion between the believe of one nation and one country ( traditional nationalism ) with the believe that one nation is better than the others

Of COURSE there is. (But note my earlier point that a belief in one's own superiority isn't strictly necessary for extremism.) You said that you lived abroad. Can you honestly disagree with the statement that most patriotic people openly or secretly believe that their culture, race, country or at least military/football team is better and worth more than others?

There is no important disconnect between traditional nationalism and ultranationalism that develops into fascism or violent extremism. Fascism simply caries the national idea (as found in America, France, China or Finland) and carries it to a paranoid, immoral extreme. That's what extremism is: taking a moderate political or social idea and using monstrous methods in order to achieve it, while refusing all compromise.

Any nationalism can develop into fascist ultranationalism. What do you think is happening all over Europe right now? Either Hitler's ghost is visiting the continental electorate in its sleep, or national fervor is turning sour and hateful.

Is the same if you say that Islamism is the same as Jihadism.

In fact your words are quite offensive, you are saying that the Scottish, Catalans, Basques, etc. that want the independence of their nation to protect their culture are the same as the nazis that perpetrated the holocaust.

Oh, nonsense. The Scottish, Catalans are Basques are not fascists. They don't think that the English and Castilians should surrender all economic and cultural influence and leave the region, and they don't want to achieve their goals through violence. That's the distinction.

But ETA, now. Now we have similarities.

As for Islamism and Jihadism, one is a violent, more extreme outgrowth of the other. Muslims perpetrated 9/11, even though it was only a handful of crazed Wahabbis, and not indicative or typical of Islam as a whole. Likewise, it was nationalists that ran the death camps, even though it was a fascist party that did it, and not a cuddly Belgian or Canadian politician. The former is just the latter, radicalized and run off the rails in a time or revolutionary upheaval and debased democracy.

Don't agree. Turks precisely invaded and annexed part of Cyprus and also tried to invade parts of the Iraqi Kurdistan during the Second Gulf War.

And in Yugoslavia it was the Serbian Imperialism that wanted to build the Greater Serbia that has parts in a lot of countries ( Romania, Albania, Bulgaria, etc. ).

You noticed that Cyrprus is full of ethnic Turks, right? And Kurdistan was about the PKK conflict. Obviously Turkey didn't intend to annex part of Iraq.

As for Greater Serbia, Wikipedia defines it like this: ...the creation of a Serbian land which would incorporate all regions of traditional significance to the Serbian nation, and regions outside of Serbia that are populated mostly by Serbs. This movement's main ideology is to unite all Serbs (or all historically ruled or Serb populated lands) into one state, claiming, depending on the version, different areas of many surrounding countries.

This isn't imperial expansion in the traditional mode. No Russians marching into Uzbekistan or Spaniards in Chile. Some Serbs interpreted those lands as belonging to their national homeland, the natural borders of their Serbian state. They wanted to govern their own people, not dominate others. That's the whole point of all my posts. Each nation's version of its national homeland will almost always overlap with the historical lands of their neighbors. That's why drawing just and accurate borders is usually a fairy tale. Most of northern Russia used to be populated by Finns, you know.

[Tonci87 163]

As for Greater Serbia, Wikipedia defines it like this: ...the creation of a Serbian land which would incorporate all regions of traditional significance to the Serbian nation, and regions outside of Serbia that are populated mostly by Serbs. This movement's main ideology is to unite all Serbs (or all historically ruled or Serb populated lands) into one state, claiming, depending on the version, different areas of many surrounding countries.

This isn't imperial expansion in the traditional mode. No Russians marching into Uzbekistan or Spaniards in Chile. Some Serbs interpreted those lands as belonging to their national homeland, the natural borders of their Serbian state. They wanted to govern their own people, not dominate others. That's the whole point of all my posts. Each nation's version of its national homeland will almost always overlap with the historical lands of their neighbors. That's why drawing just and accurate borders is usually a fairy tale. Most of northern Russia used to be populated by Finns, you know.

The bold part is important. The Serb imperialists consider alsmost the whole Balkan to be of traditional significance and even a small historic serbian enclave qulifies the whole country as part of greater Serbia in the eyes of their imperialists.

Actually the Serb Imperialists want to rule over all South slavic countries. There never was a Serb majority in Croatia or Slovenia, still they want to rule those lands too. The Serb imperialism is also a very old idea, they had that since medieval times....

BTW totally contrary to the other South Slavic nations who are mostly peacefull and content with their land. That is a very interesting difference right there.

[mistyronin 1181]

There is no important disconnect between traditional nationalism and ultranationalism that develops into fascism or violent extremism. Fascism simply caries the national idea (as found in America, France, China or Finland) and carries it to a paranoid, immoral extreme. That's what extremism is: taking a moderate political or social idea and using monstrous methods in order to achieve it, while refusing all compromise.***

You seem to confuse different terms. What provoked the Holocaust, was racism not extreme nationalism ( if not Nazis would have done the same to all non Germans, when for instance they venerated the "Scandinavian Race" that they considered superior / more pure than the "Germanic one", but that didn't prevent them to invade a couple of them. In fact it was in the nazi Berlin that occurred the first European Buddhist Congress ( in fact Himmler sent expeditions to Himalaya to search for Shambala, and even visited himself the Montserrat Monastery in Catalonia to try to find the Holy Grail ).

Any nationalism can develop into fascist ultranationalism. What do you think is happening all over Europe right now? Either Hitler's ghost is visiting the continental electorate in its sleep, or national fervor is turning sour and hateful.

The Fascism is just a really twisted view of Nationalism mixed with socialism, racism, etc., that as I told you has the same points in common than Islam to Jihadism or Christianism to terrorists like Anders Breivik.

Oh, nonsense. The Scottish, Catalans are Basques are not fascists. They don't think that the English and Castilians should surrender all economic and cultural influence and leave the region, and they don't want to achieve their goals through violence. That's the distinction.

Precisely! They are not the same. And Scottish, Catalans, Basques, Quebecians etc. are all nationalists, are fighting ( peacefully and democratically ) to get a country for their nation, to protect their cultures. In the same way Ireland did, or Finland, and basically more than half of the countries of the world.

If you think ETA, has any point of ultranationalism, thinking that they are better than others. You are wrong. I lived a couple years at a few kms from Euskadi and meet a lot of Basque nationalists even pro-ETA and none of them think that Basques are better than Spanish and should invade them nor anyone.

I also lived enough years in Barcelona ( Catalonia ) to even learn some Catalan. Meet hundreds of Catalans, etc. From the most nationalist countries and none of them thinker that they nation was better than any other nor wanted to expand nor any craziness.

Likewise, it was nationalists that ran the death camps, even though it was a fascist party that did it.

You noticed that Cyrprus is full of ethnic Turks, right?

It was not in the past. Turkey promoted the settling of Turkish citizens there after the invasion, not before.

It's the same as if you say that Nazi Germany had the right to invade Poland, because a few Germans lived there... That has nothing to do with traditional nationalism.

And about Iraq... If Turkey didn't intend to annex part of Iraq why even the US had to meet them to say that they couldn't take that territory...

Imperialism is to expand beyond the national borders, to get "lebensraum".

For instance the US conquered a lot of lands to the West, because they thought that their culture was superior than the others, nothing to to with creating a state for their nation ( which is the main goal of the traditional nationalism ).

[maturin 12]

The Serb imperialists consider alsmost the whole Balkan to be of traditional significance and even a small historic serbian enclave qulifies the whole country as part of greater Serbia in the eyes of their imperialists.

Serbian imperialists who want control over the whole Balkan peninsula in the 20th century were only dreamers, and not particularly relevant to the actual conflicts. The frontlines of the war bore that out. Serb nationalists were not willing to die for control of Slovenia. 95% of the fighting took place in the Krajina of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. That is, places were the population was significantly Serb, in lands that were part of Yugoslavia. They wanted a Serbian nation-state whose borders actually included the Serbs, and not just those that happened to live inside the federal unit of Yugoslavia.

BTW totally contrary to the other South Slavic nations who are mostly peacefull and content with their land. That is a very interesting difference right there.

There's very little the Serbs did that the Croats, Muslims and Albanians didn't do also. Don't say indecent things. There is plenty of irredentist sentiment for everyone. The Hungarians are always moaning about their lost lands, the Bulgarians were happy enough to be rid of their Turks, and if the Moldovans are nice and content with their ethnically Moldovan lands, why do they worry about Trans-Dniester?

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[mistyronin 1181]

There's very little the Serbs did that the Croats, Muslims and Albanians didn't do also.

IMO you have a really huge confusion between traditional nationalism and ultranationalism / facism / imperialism.

If you confuse that the native culture of a place want to have their own country to rule themselves and protect their culture with crazy people who think that they nation is best than anyone else and have the right to do whatever they want with the other "inferiors/Untermensch " nations and their territories.

BTW I think we are derailing the thread, we should focus to Iraq actuality.

Edited June 18, 2014 by MistyRonin

[maturin 12]

What provoked the Holocaust, was racism not extreme nationalism

You're splitting hairs, especially when a sufficiently distinct national group can be considered a race. Basque nationalism was until recently considered to be a matter of bloodlines, ie, a race.

Anyway, do you really want to go on record saying that the Nazis weren't ultranationalists? And if it was all about race, why did they put homosexuals and mentally infirm in death camps? Nazism was about purifying the German people, and that means German identity as a national and cultural ideal first and foremost. That is where the idea stemmed from. The Aryan racial ideology was just hocus-pocus added on top of that. Only the indoctrinated would buy into such a thing, but every citizens of the Reich knew what a German is.

You seem to forget that the purifying ideology of the Holocaust developed as a project to be carried out INSIDE Germany. If Nazism is all about imperialism and dominating other peoples, then how do you explain the fact that they started with violence against their own people?

It's the same as if you say that Nazi Germany had the right to invade Poland, because a few Germans lived there.

If there were thousands of Germans living in Poland and in danger of being massacred, then surely Germany would have a right to intervene, militarily if need be. That should be an obvious principle of international relations. Not that I'm applying the principle to justify any specific interventions.

Edit: Fine, Iraq it is then.

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[Tonci87 163]

Serbian imperialists who want control over the whole Balkan peninsula in the 20th century were only dreamers, and not particularly relevant to the actual conflicts. The frontlines of the war bore that out. Serb nationalists were not willing to die for control of Slovenia. 95% of the fighting took place in the Krajina of Croatia, Bosnia and Kosovo. That is, places were the population was significantly Serb, in lands that were part of Yugoslavia. They wanted a Serbian nation-state whose borders actually included the Serbs, and not just those that happened to live inside the federal unit of Yugoslavia.

There's very little the Serbs did that the Croats, Muslims and Albanians didn't do also. Don't say indecent things. There is plenty of irredentist sentiment for everyone. The Hungarians are always moaning about their lost lands, the Bulgarians were happy enough to be rid of their Turks, and if the Moldovans are nice and content with their ethnically Moldovan lands, why do they worry about Trans-Dniester?

You obviously don´t know much about the history of the Balkan. Most of the fighting during the last war took place in Bosnia, but oly because the Serbians were unable to advance any further. They had to retreat out of Slovenia because they knew that a war with Croatia has to start and troops in Slovenia would be cut off. Milosevics plan was to reconquer Slovenia after he has dealt with Croatia. After that the Serbian Army pushed hevily forwards in Northeast, mid and south Croatia. Their advance towards Zagreb was stoped in Vukovar in the most devastating battle Europe has seen since WW2. Their advance in mid Croatia towards Zadar had the aim to cut Croatia in half but got stoped on the outskirts of the city. Their advance in south Croatia got stoped outside of Dubrovnik. After that their troops had to retreat back into the Krajina and Bosnia because the Muslims had also announced their independence and they would have been unable to continue a war in Croatia.

In coclusion they wanted to rule everything, it just didn´t work out for them. Also it is historically true that the Greater Serbia Idea is ancient and unique to their nation. There is no theory of a greater Croatia/Slovenia/etc.

[mistyronin 1181]

Anyway, do you really want to go on record saying that the Nazis weren't ultranationalists?

Read again. I said that the holocaust was product of the racism. Of course Nazis were ultranationalist / imperialist, in fact they are the perfect paradigm of that, that's what took them to think that they could conquer all Europe and convert it into their back yard. They were also Homophobs, that's why they prosecuted homosexuals, and a bunch of other things.

In fact the National Socialism ideology was a mixture of a lot of sick believes of that time ( among them ultranationalism ). But you can't say that Nazi = Ultranationalist, it's a wrong premise, although quite common nowadays in the right wing ( for instance the actual ruling party in Spain says that traditional nationalism = Nazism; or Putin calling Ukrainian nationalists nazis ).

It's quite a dangerous matter to use the insult "nazi" for almost anything you don't like.

BTW Basque nationalism only had relationship with "bloodlines" during the 30s and 40s where even in countries like the US exist that silly ideas of purity of blood.

Edited June 18, 2014 by MistyRonin

[maturin 12]

You obviously don´t know much about the history of the Balkan. Most of the fighting during the last war took place in Bosnia, but oly because the Serbians were unable to advance any further. They had to retreat out of Slovenia because they knew that a war with Croatia has to start and troops in Slovenia would be cut off. Milosevics plan was to reconquer Slovenia after he has dealt with Croatia. After that the Serbian Army pushed hevily forwards in Northeast, mid and south Croatia. Their advance towards Zagreb was stoped in Vukovar in the most devastating battle Europe has seen since WW2. Their advance in mid Croatia towards Zadar had the aim to cut Croatia in half but got stoped on the outskirts of the city. Their advance in south Croatia got stoped outside of Dubrovnik. After that their troops had to retreat back into the Krajina and Bosnia because the Muslims had also announced their independence and they would have been unable to continue a war in Croatia.

In coclusion they wanted to rule everything, it just didn´t work out for them. Also it is historically true that the Greater Serbia Idea is ancient and unique to their nation. There is no theory of a greater Croatia/Slovenia/etc.

You're drawing no distinction between the centrist armed forces and establishment of rump Yugoslavia trying to preserve Tito's state, and the political project of Greater Serbia. One slowly turned into the other, but you can't just ignore the fact that there wasn't a Serbia at first. It was the Yugoslav Army and the Yugoslav government, which were staffed by communists. Countries do not allow parts of themselves to secede, and the political forces in Belgrade really were the de-jure highest authorities of Yugoslavia. Suggesting that anti-separatism campaigns are the same thing as aggressive imperial expansionism is just lazy and dishonest.

We are talking about nationalist ideology in this thread, that is, the causes that motivate populations. Ordinary Serbs may not have wanted Yugoslavia to break up, but there was no political will to conquer Slovenia and Zagreb. The single greatest motivating factor for Serbs as a whole was protecting their co-nationals, who they feared were being "kidnapped" into suddenly-foreign countries by fascists. Much like Ukraine, in fact. Sure, there were Greater Serbia ideologues pulling strings in power, but Serbs mostly wanted to make sure they were governed by their own people.

That is, pretty much what the Croatians wanted. You claim to know a lot about the Balkan conflict, so of course you know that the Croat and Serbs agreed to divide Bosnia between them. Oh, those peaceful Croats, so content with their lands.

There is no theory of a greater Croatia/Slovenia/etc.

Knock, knock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Croatia

The Croatians believed that their historical homeland extended into regions with significant Muslim and Serbian populations. That means a de-factor Greater Croatia. WTF do you think the Croat canton of modern Bosnia is? In Bosnia and in the Krajina, the minorities had to be expelled by ethnic cleansing. It's the same logic, the same political forces at work. The Serb nationalists were not distinct, they were just more powerful and at times more ruthless. Tonci, I never though that you of all people would buy into the unbalanced reporting of the Western mass media.

I said that the holocaust was product of the racism.

Racism AND extremist nationalism.

This can be easily proved. One part of the Holocaust was the killing of the mentally ill and sexually deviant. That is, pure-blooded Aryans. Another part of the Holocaust took place in the Ustase concentration camps of Croatian fascists. These camps were primarily designed to torture and massacre Serbs. Now, what is the difference between Serbs and Croats? Everyone agrees that they are racially, even ethnically identical. Like a Russian from Moscow versus a Russian from Ivanovo. A Tuscan and a Roman. Only religion and national identity distinguished them. So where is the racists ideology here?

It's quite a dangerous matter to use the insult "nazi" for almost anything you don't like.

Show me where I called anyone a nazi. All nazis are ultranationalists but not all ultranationalists are nazis.

What I will say is this: Many ultranationalists who do not specifically admire Hitler nonetheless exhibit very similar ideology and political methods. Russia loathes Hitler but is nonetheless full of ultranationalists who would love to violently subdue non-Russian ethnic groups, militarize society to a high degree, and enforce racial purity and traditionalist social norms. They wave the Soviet flag and wear Giorgievskaya lenta commemorating victory over Nazi Germany, yet would like an ethnic Russian state that would bear a close resemblance to Hitler's.

BTW Basque nationalism only had relationship with "bloodlines" during the 30s and 40s where even in countries like the US exist that silly ideas of purity of blood.

I know. And my point was that nationalism can be made indistinguishable from racism. As it often was in slave societies.

Edited June 18, 2014 by maturin

[Tonci87 163]

You're drawing no distinction between the centrist armed forces and establishment of rump Yugoslavia trying to preserve Tito's state, and the political project of Greater Serbia. One slowly turned into the other, but you can't just ignore the fact that there wasn't a Serbia at first. It was the Yugoslav Army and the Yugoslav government, which were staffed by communists. Countries do not allow parts of themselves to secede, and the political forces in Belgrade really were the de-jure highest authorities of Yugoslavia. Suggesting that anti-separatism campaigns are the same thing as aggressive imperial expansionism is just lazy and dishonest.

We are talking about nationalist ideology in this thread, that is, the causes that motivate populations. Ordinary Serbs may not have wanted Yugoslavia to break up, but there was no political will to conquer Slovenia and Zagreb. The single greatest motivating factor for Serbs as a whole was protecting their co-nationals, who they feared were being "kidnapped" into suddenly-foreign countries by fascists. Much like Ukraine, in fact. Sure, there were Greater Serbia ideologues pulling strings in power, but Serbs mostly wanted to make sure they were governed by their own people.

That is, pretty much what the Croatians wanted. You claim to know a lot about the Balkan conflict, so of course you know that the Croat and Serbs agreed to divide Bosnia between them. Oh, those peaceful Croats, so content with their lands.

Knock, knock: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Croatia

The Croatians believed that their historical homeland extended into regions with significant Muslim and Serbian populations. That means a de-factor Greater Croatia. WTF do you think the Croat canton of modern Bosnia is? In Bosnia and in the Krajina, the minorities had to be expelled by ethnic cleansing. It's the same logic, the same political forces at work. The Serb nationalists were not distinct, they were just more powerful and at times more ruthless. Tonci, I never though that you of all people would buy into the unbalanced reporting of the Western mass media.

Again it ain´t that easy.

You're drawing no distinction between the centrist armed forces and establishment of rump Yugoslavia trying to preserve Tito's state, and the political project of Greater Serbia. One slowly turned into the other

When the war started that had already happened. The Volunteers were coming into the army to fight for Serbia, not for Yugoslavia.

What you call Greater Croatia is a bit misleading and not comparable to the serbian Idea of a greater Serbia. It refers to the territories that were Croatian in medieval times when Croatia was still independent and before the Osman empire advanced on the Balkan. So yes those territories are indeed historically Croatian but today no one with a sane mind would dream of a Greater Croatia. However the Croatian Herzegovina, now part of Bosnia and Herzegovina is still considered to be Croatian territory by most Croatians wich is the reason why they tried to divide BiH with Serbia.

Note the difference:

Serbian imperalism->Rule over all other South Slavic people (or in case of the Muslims, their extermination).

[mistyronin 1181]

Racism and ultranationalism are two very different things. Two kinds of hatred. The first is about race and the second about culture/nation. Can be found together, because mainly people who hate are people who don't have culture.

For instance a USA afroamerican can believe that his nation is the best of the world, among any other and has the right to invade them all, but he is not racist.

Or a racist can hate afroamericans but don't thing that his nations is better than anyone else.

Culture/ethnicity vs Race.

But again nothing to do with traditional nationalism that is simply to want a country structure for your culture, to protect your language, etc.

And now I will ask all to go back to the subject of the thread. Thank you.

[maturin 12]

When the war started that had already happened. The Volunteers were coming into the army to fight for Serbia, not for Yugoslavia.

That's simplifying things. The Yugoslavian Army and central government did not disintegrate all at once. Reality is always complex, and there were many different competing political threads inside the country. By war's end, Serbian nationalist was all that mattered, but centrist-oriented Yugoslav communism played an important role in the conflict, and not because people were seeking Greater Serbia. Likewise, all the rhetoric and inflammatory statements had people convinced that Croatia was returning to its WWII fascist past. That's a reflex of self-defense, not an imperialist project.

What you call Greater Croatia is a bit misleading and not comparable to the serbian Idea of a greater Serbia.

That is just your bias talking. Greater Croatia wants to rebuild the medieval Croatian state, Greater Serbia wants to rebuild the pre-Ottoman Serbian empire. And that usually means Serb-populated lands only, not all of Croatia or Slovenia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greater_Serbia#mediaviewer/File:Greater_Serbia_in_Yugoslavia.png

Serbian imperalism->Rule over all other South Slavic people (or in case of the Muslims, their extermination).

Milosevic never seriously tried to rule over the Slovenes and Croats. He agreed to give half of Bosnia to Tudjman. Basically your talking about the intentions of a few of the most extreme radicals, and using it to describe the actions of millions of people. Most ordinary Serbs just didn't want their relatives and neighbors to suddenly find themselves living in a hostile foreign country, and thought that the Holocaust was going to happen again.

[mistyronin 1181]

And now I will ask all to go back to the subject of the thread. Thank you.

Please. Tonci I will ask you to make your last remark if you want but then go back to topic.

---------- Post added at 23:02 ---------- Previous post was at 22:32 ----------

( BBC ) Iraq formally asks US to launch air strikes against rebels