The cooperative will meet June 15 in Shanghai to consider adding India, Pakistan, Mongolia, and Iran to the fold.

Russia, Iran, and India are old allies of the Northern Alliance and have worked together against the Pakistan-backed Taliban regime, that was also initially supported by the US.

Start by trying to get your head around this:

Now, as Ceti intimates: What I want to ask is when Central Asia became part of the US backyard? By which I mean, at what point did we decide that the Central Asia was clearly within the US sphere of influence, as is say Colombia.

Point being that the construction of this discussion is interesting, in that it seems to me that it is Russia which is struggling to maintain control of its traditional proxies, proxies that it has had almost absolute control over since about 1886?

Afghanistan was the very outer limit of that sphere of influence, known as the Russian empire, and later the Soviet Union.

It seems very interesting that we are exhibiting a type of discourse which asserts that the US is on the defensive against a Russian politcal offensive, when in fact it seems to me that the narrative is exactly opposite to that -- it is the Russians that are losing Central Asia.

Russian "agressors," US "defenders," are we falling victim to a propoganda trope set in the terms of the reigning ideology?

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
India has pulled the plug on the Agni 111 missile, just days before the Shanghai Conference is to consider India's inclusion in the group. The road and rail-mobile ICBM put China under India's nuclear orbit; the range is roughly 2,000 miles. Analysts say the Agni 111 only makes sense if China is considered a threat. Neighboring Pakistan is a comparative stone's throw.

$10 says Rice or Rummy will announce a courtesy call to India tout-suite.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by nister:
ceti, America has to resort to "over the horizon" military presence, such as can be provided by carrier group, or island airfields to the south, more and more. They are losing their "footprint" in the region. I'd say that Russia has been rather astute.

---

The Yanks claim to be able to assert military presence all over the world with small numbers of troops, and I think it's possible. They still maintain almost 900 military installations. They are in Europe, supposedly to protect that part of the world from a cold war threat that doesn't exist anymore. And now there is talk of American missiles in Eastern Europe. The military industrial complex is desperate for a real enemy.

I think the shadow gov and corporate hirelings have their fingers crossed concerning Iraq, the biggest project and going concern. The Yanks are wanting to do what they ran out of time to finish in Vietnam. And that's to leave an army capable of defending corporate America's interests. It didn't happen in Nam, and it likely won't happen again in Iraq by the looks of it.

quote:

---

Part of the "grand game" playing out in the region is the hoped-for Haifa oil terminus.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by 500_Apples:
Yes but USA can also fuck over China pretty badly. A 25% tarrif on chineese goods and boom. Though of course that would give the US economy a correction.

---

A correction is an understatement. And China could just dump it's massive US currency reserves to bring the dollar down by 25% within about a day - effectively erasing the tariff. No pain for China, big pain for the US.

I find it really peculiar that the most right-wing government in recent US history has gone to such enormous lengths to place themselves in such a subervient position to a totalitarian Communist regime.

The economy is a means to an end for the Chinese leadership - they would sacrifice it if they felt threatened. The economy is the whole reason for existence of much of the US leadership, and they would sacrifice almost everything else to preserve it even for a short time. (see: Climate change)

quote:

---

Originally posted by ceti:
(dating back to 1918 when even Canadian police occupied bits of Russia).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Papal Bull:

This sounds cool! Could you give me some information on this? I've never heard about that.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by arborman:

I knew that there were some Canadian troops in Russia shortly after WWI trying to help the White Russians fight the Bolsheviks, but there has never been much discussion of it. In fact, that's the extent of my knowledge.

---

As did other armies and mercenaries from Spain, England, U.S.A., Japan and about 20 other nations. An American contingent of about 3000 ventured into the heart of Russia along with Czechs from the east and were never heard from again. Germans, Brits, Canadians, Spaniards and more attacked from the west. Russia was torn apart.

Throngs of hungry Russian's traveled to the Czar's palace and pleaded for relief leading up to 1917. They were ordered shot to death at the gates. Russian royals lived in opluence and entertained European royalty in any of their 30 odd summer and winter palaces while sacrificing Russian peasants to war with their relations in Germany. Life was cheap in Russia century after oppressive century.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fidel:

As did other armies and mercenaries from Spain, England, U.S.A., Japan and about 20 other nations. An American contingent of about 3000 ventured into the heart of Russia along with Czechs from the east and were never heard from again. Germans, Brits, Canadians, Spaniards and more attacked from the west. Russia was torn apart.

Throngs of hungry Russian's traveled to the Czar's palace and pleaded for relief leading up to 1917. They were ordered shot to death at the gates. Russian royals lived in opluence and entertained European royalty in any of their 30 odd summer and winter palaces while sacrificing Russian peasants to war with their relations in Germany. Life was cheap in Russia century after oppressive century.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

---

Still seems to be, unfortunately. Unrelated, but I think the human destruction Stalin wreaked upon his own people makes him the worst leader in human history.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Dead_Letter ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
K. Start with getting rid of that idea that there is something that can really be called a "basic human morality," it is in there where all of your preset ideological dispositions that don't mesh with the realities, and therefore confuse you, are embedded, like so many duplicitious FOX News correspondents.

Start by trying to get your head around this:

Now, as Ceti intimates: What I want to ask is when Central Asia became part of the US backyard? By which I mean, at what point did we decide that the Central Asia was clearly within the US sphere of influence, as is say Colombia.

Point being that the construction of this discussion is interesting, in that it seems to me that it is Russia which is struggling to maintain control of its traditional proxies, proxies that it has had almost absolute control over since about 1886?

Afghanistan was the very outer limit of that sphere of influence, known as the Russian empire, and later the Soviet Union.

It seems very interesting that we are exhibiting a type of discourse which asserts that the US is on the defensive against a Russian politcal offensive, when in fact it seems to me that the narrative is exactly opposite to that -- it is the Russians that are losing Central Asia.

Russian "agressors," US "defenders," are we falling victim to a propoganda trope set in the terms of the reigning ideology?

[ 23 May 2006: Message edited by: Cueball ]

---

You're right about the Russians actually losing influence in Central Asia. But I disagree with the thread title and subsequent discourse for another reason: no, then little, mention of China. Russia's plan for regaining lost influence revolves around allying itself with China in a pretty unequal partnership. The Russians will continue to lose power and influence in the region by their lonesome. China has the hammer there (the sickle too? ), which they didn't in past Sino-Soviet alliances. So since 1989, Russia has lost influence in the region, China and America have gained some. Russia is trying to stop the bleeding by linking with China and China holds all the cards there. What'll happen from here on out, who knows ...

But USA losing Central Asia? They never had it and you're right to point that out.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Dead_Letter ]

I don't think India has had a change of heart regarding alliances with China and Russia; more likely China has encouraged India to do a little "sabre rattling".

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dead_Letter:

Still seems to be, unfortunately. Unrelated, but I think the human destruction Stalin wreaked upon his own people makes him the worst leader in human history.

[ 07 July 2006: Message edited by: Dead_Letter ]

---