Across the globe today, you'll find almost three dozen raging conflicts, from the valleys of Afghanistan to the jungles of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the streets of Kashmir. But what are the next crises that might erupt in 2011? Here are a few worrisome spots that make our list.
Côte d'Ivoire
Côte d'Ivoire is on the brink of what may be a very bad 2011. After a five-year delay, Côte d'Ivoire held presidential elections on Oct. 31. A peaceful first round of voting was commended by the international community, but the runoff between incumbent Laurent Gbagbo and former Prime Minister Alassane Ouattara was marred by clashes and allegations of fraud on both sides.
The international community, including the United Nations, the African Union, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS), former colonial power France, and the United States, has recognized Outtara as the victor, but this has not prevented Gbagbo, with the backing of senior military officials and the Constitutional Council, from taking the oath of office. Both politicians have named prime ministers and governments as tension mounts and protests occur in the streets. The United Nations has reported disappearances, rape, and at least two dozen deaths so far.
Worst case scenario: Gbagbo stays in power, armed conflict between the supporters of each side plunges the country into civil war. Best case scenario: Gbagbo succumbs to international appeals and steps down. But it's not clear how things could get better from here. The international community has already ratcheted up pressure, including financial restrictions and travel bans. And the United Nations renewed the mandate of its peacekeeping operation there, despite Gbagbo calling for its immediate departure.
It's very possible that Cote d'Ivoire will take a turn for the worse in 2011. Gbagbo and Ouattara both have heavily armed supporters who seem ready to fight for the long haul.
ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP/Getty Images
Colombia
At first glance, Colombia's prospects for 2011 look bright. The country's new president, Juan Manuel Santos, has surprised many former critics with his bold reform proposals, many of which are aimed at addressing the root causes of the country's 46-year civil conflict against leftist rebels. He has mended relations with neighbouring Venezuela and Ecuador, committed to protect human rights advocates, and proposed legislation to help resettle the country's four million displaced.
The news is not all good, however. Despite a series of strategic losses in recent years -- from territory to key leadership -- the country's leftist guerrillas, the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), still maintain about 8,000 armed troops and perhaps twice that number of supporters. The rebels killed some 30 police in the weeks after Santos's inauguration, clearly to make a point. Meanwhile, new illegal armed groups have sprung up to capture the drug trafficking market, their ranks filled with former paramilitary fighters. These gangs are largely responsible for the rising incidence of urban violence; homicide rates have gone up by over 100 percent in Colombia's second city, Medellín, last year.
If these new armed groups are not contained, Colombia stands to regress in its long fight to finally root out the drug trade -- and the militancy it fuels. In such a scenario, FARC could see a comeback, restarting its campaign of terror in the country's major cities. As has been the case so often in Colombia's recent history, it would be the civilian population who would suffer most from such a return to conflict.
Yet the opposite scenario is equally likely in the coming months. Santos has worked with his counterparts in Venezuela and Ecuador to increase border surveillance, putting pressure on illegal armed groups holed up there. Under such pressure, FARC may even welcome the chance to start talks with the government about disarmament and reintegration. Much rests in this government's hands.
LUIS ROBAYO/AFP/Getty Images
Zimbabwe
Keep an eye on Zimbabwe in 2011 as the country's "unity" government -- joining longtime President Robert Mugabe with opposition leader Prime Minister Morgan Tsvangirai -- will warrant its conciliatory name less and less by the day. The flashpoint next year? Elections. Both men want to hold them -- but they don't agree about what Zimbabweans should be voting on.
Mugabe and Tsvangirai were never going to be fast friends. Since the two were brought together in February 2009, following a 2008 election that Tsvangirai won (but his opponent refused to recognize), Mugabe has continued to monopolize the real levers of power. Despite Tsvangirai's protests, it's Mugabe who still holds sway over the army, the security forces, and all the state functions that generate revenue.
Earlier this fall, Mugabe declared that he wanted the unity government to end in 2011. He wants full elections mid-next year, and his party, ZANU-PF, is giving every indication that it will employ the same coercive tactics used in elections past to deliver victory to Mugabe. Tsvangirai's idea of the 2011 ballot is quite different: he wants to pass a new constitution.
The row over elections has pushed the nominal two-year truce between Mugabe and Tsvangirai toward the verge of collapse. Open violence could break out around the elections unless regional and international mediators negotiate a compromise and bring real pressure to bear on Mugabe to play by the rules.
Michael Nagle/Getty Images
Iraq
Iraq today is in far better shape than it was in 2007, when nearly two dozen Iraqis were dying each day in suicide bombings. But it's still far from out of the woods. And these days, it's not militants but the country's politics that post the biggest threat. The new government, formed in December after nine months of wrangling, is weak and lacks the institutions to rule effectively. Iraq's bureaucracies are nascent and fragile, and its security forces remain heavily dependent on U.S. training as well as logistics and intelligence support. Meanwhile, grievances abound -- from minority groups to repatriated refugees -- and it is unlikely that the state will be able to appease these many political demands. Sectarian violence resurfaces in fits and spurts, and is far from quashed entirely; approximately 300 Iraqis died in violence in November.
Iraq's neighbors could exploit the country's ongoing political turmoil to gain influence and sway, particularly Iran, which has long supported Shiite militants. Insurgents also await an opportunity to capitalize on political discord. At the same time, U.S. troops will be largely -- if not entirely -- withdrawn by the end of next year. And lacking that safety net, it would take very little for the country to lapse back into conflict.
That course is not inevitable, however. More likely, Iraq will continue on its current trajectory, retaining enough stability to keep its citizens relatively safe, even if services remain deficient. But in a muddle-through scenario, it may be the best the country can reasonably hope for as it emerges from an 8-year U.S. occupation.
ALI AL-SAADI/AFP/Getty Images
Venezuela
Over the next 12 months, watch for Venezuelan President Hugo Chávez to take his brand of 21st-century socialism to the extremes. Having lost his majority in Parliament in September, Chávez has since been working hard to ensure that the new, opposition legislature will be irrelevant by the time it is sworn in in January. The Venezuelan president has consolidated control over the military and police, seized more private companies, and won temporary "decree powers" from the outgoing, pro-government National Assembly.
Chávez's power grab comes as the country's economic, social, and security problems are mounting. Violence has spiked dramatically in urban areas; there were some 19,000 homicides in 2009 out of a population of 28 million. In recent years, Venezuela has become a major drug-trafficking corridor, home to foreign and domestic cartels alike. State security forces have also been accused of participating in criminal activity. Meanwhile, Chávez has escalated -- rather than soothed -- the situation with fiery, partisan rhetoric that seems to egg on a violent suppression of the opposition. That message has an audience; government-allied street gangs in Caracas stand ready to defend his revolution with Kalashnikovs.
MIGUEL GUTIERREZ/AFP/Getty Images
Sudan
The fate of Sudan in 2011 will be set early, on January 9, when a referendum on southern self-determination is scheduled to take place, and which will likely result in independence for the south. Two decades of war came to an end in Sudan in 2005 with the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). But as the agreement enters its last stages, however, that delicate peace will be tested. While securing the referendum has been an international priority, the long-term stability of the region relies on the ability of north and south Sudan to forge a positive post-CPA relationship.
If matters go well, the January referendum will take place smoothly, with its results respected by the government in Khartoum. This would provide the perfect platform for negotiations on post-referendum arrangements to be successfully concluded. But should the vote go poorly, we might witness the reignition of conflict between north and south and an escalation of violence in Darfur, all of which could potentially draw in regional states. At this point, nothing is certain.
Finally, there's the tricky matter of creating a new, independent Southern Sudan, which many are already dubbing a pre-failed state. The border remains undecided -- no small matter since the contested middle ground happens to sit on a large oil field. Meanwhile in Juba, the nascent capital, institutions and services would urgently need to be built from scratch.
ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/Getty Images
Mexico
It has been four years since Mexican President Felipe Calderón declared war on the country's drug lords. During that time, 30,000 people have fallen victim to the conflict, many of them along the northern border with the United States, largely as a result of in-fighting among rival gangs vying for control of trafficking corridors. Today, Ciudad Juarez, a border city near Texas, competes with Caracas as the most deadly city in the world. Over the last 12 months, the violence has spread to Mexico's economic and cultural hubs that were once considered immune from drug infiltration. To the north, Mexico's organized crime routes now reach into nearly every metropolitan area of the United States.
In short, despite a $400 million annual aid package from the United States, and big boosts in funding for the military, it's far from clear whether the government of Mexico is winning -- or can win -- this battle.
During the last year in particular, Calderón has been criticized for the conduct of the narco war. Not only is it difficult to pinpoint clear progress, but for many, life has visibly deteriorated since the crackdown began. Twenty times more Mexicans have died during the last four years than Americans have in the entire war in Afghanistan. Two gubernatorial candidates and 11 mayors have been assassinated. The press is under increasing pressure to self-censor. One paper in Ciudad Juárez went as far as asking, in an open letter to the cartels, what it was that they were allowed to publish.
"Winning" would require a hard look at the Mexican military and police, which have been credibly accused of committing flagrant abuses while fighting the drug gangs. The judicial system likewise needs strengthening to bring the guilty to fair trial. And, of course, much depends on Mexico's northern neighbor: America remains the largest market for drugs in the world, and so long as U.S. users demand product, the cartels will keep the supply flowing.
Spencer Platt/Getty Images
Guatemala
Mexico's drug war is also sending shock waves throughout Latin America. Under pressure from the Mexican state, the most infamous cartels are seeking friendlier ground and finding it in Guatemala, where the state is weak and the institutions are fragile. In the worst-case scenario for 2011, Guatemala could be host to a perpetual turf war of attrition between these various cartels, all competing to control drug-trafficking routes -- and increasingly human-trafficking corridors -- to the United States.
So far, Guatemala's best ally in fighting back has been the International Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), a tribunal-like institution set up to root out corrupt and cartel-tainted officials. But its star prosecutor recently resigned, claiming that the political leadership was thwarting his work.* Presidential elections are slotted for August, but early polls suggest a polarized nation, with around 20 candidates and no clear front-runner. That's just the sort of uncertainty that cartels are good at exploiting.
JOHAN ORDONEZ/AFP/Getty Images
*Correction, Jan. 3, 2011: This sentence originally stated that CICIG's mandate ends in 2011. That text has been deleted because on Dec. 20, 2010, the U.N. General Assembly extended the mandate to 2013.
Haiti
Nature had it in for Haiti in 2010, but it may be politics that batters the small island country in the coming year. The poorest country in the Western Hemisphere began the year with a devastating January earthquake that killed more than 300,000, a deadly cholera outbreak, and a tortuously slow reconstruction process, which remains way off the pace and beset with difficulties. A November 28 presidential election, which should have led to the election of a new, legitimate government, remains wedged in an impasse over allegations of fraud. The winner won't be decided until a run-off vote is held in January, but protests have already erupted over what some saw as the unfair exclusion of certain candidates in the second round. At least a dozen lives have been lost in the street clashes so far.
Already, Haiti was on the verge of a social breakdown. Today, more than 1 million Haitians remain homeless in the ruined capital. The government, whose ranks and infrastructure were devastated by the earthquake, has no capacity to deliver services or provide security. And international aid groups and U.N. peacekeepers can only plug those gaps temporarily. Relief work has also been hampered by a lack of funding. Despite big promises from international donors, dollars have been slow to trickle into the country.
This precarious situation will make for an enormous challenge if and when a new government does at last come to power next year. The run-off election will mark a year since the earthquake, with little improvement in the everyday lives of Haitians, whose patience is running out.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan, a land of striking beauty, grinding poverty, and rapacious leaders, could well become the next stomping ground for guerrillas -- Central Asians and other Muslims from the former Soviet Union -- who have been fighting alongside the Taliban for years and may now be thinking of returning home to settle scores with the region's brutal and corrupt leaders.
Run since 1992 by Emomali Rahmon, a post-Soviet strongman, Tajikistan has been hollowed out by top-to-bottom corruption. A U.S. diplomatic cable released by WikiLeaks has an American diplomat noting that "From the President down to the policeman on the street, government is characterized by cronyism and corruption. Rahmon and his family control the country's major businesses, including the largest bank, and they play hardball to protect their business interests, no matter the cost to the economy writ large."
Not surprisingly in such an environment, most public services -- including the health system -- have all but collapsed. The economy survives on remittances from migrant laborers in Russia, and roughly half of the country's population lives below the poverty line. It is a dangerous brew for instability.
In recent months, the Tajik government has attempted to crack down against Islamist insurgent groups who have crossed the border from northern Afghanistan, but to little effect. There is rising concern in Washington that Tajikistan will become the new theater of operations for Islamic militants, and might offer a convenient route for insurgent penetration of other volatile or vulnerable parts of Central Asia -- first off, Tajikistan's desperately weak neighbor, Kyrgyzstan.
In the coming year, it's easy to imagine Tajikistan sliding further and further toward a failed state as the government quietly cedes control of whole sections of the country to militants. Even if the Afghan militants were out of the picture, however, Tajikistan's democratic prospects would look bleak. As the American cable put it, "The government is not willing to reform its political process."
STR/AFP/Getty Images
Pakistan
It's hard to remember a time when Pakistan didn't seem on the brink of collapse. This coming year will likely be no exception. The country faces a humanitarian crisis in its mid-section where floods displaced 10 million people, a security threat from terrorist groups operating on Pakistani soil, and political instability from a weak administration still trying to wield civilian control over the all-powerful military.
The most immediate priority is assisting the millions of people who are still displaced following floods in Pakistan's countryside. The cities could also use attention; 2010 saw the biggest spike in urban terrorist attacks since the war next door in Afghanistan started. Insurgent and terrorist groups now have strongholds not just in the northwestern tribal belt bordering Afghanistan, but in urban centers such as Islamabad, Karachi, Quetta, and Lahore. Yet despite the flurry of attacks on its heartland, Pakistan still seems reluctant to confront the insurgents with full force. So far, military operations against terrorist groups have vacillated between the extremes -- either heavy-handed and haphazard force or ill-conceived peace deals. Further, the criminal justice system has failed totally to preempt, investigate, and convict militants. Violence may well spike again in 2011.
Meanwhile in Islamabad, the civilian leadership under President Asif Ali Zardari has grown unpopular and weak, plagued by corruption and an inability to maintain control of the military leaders. Civilian control over national security policy, in both the domestic and external domains, could help put the criminal genie back in the bottle. Stronger civilian leadership of the humanitarian agenda would also prevent the millions living in regions devastated by the massive monsoon floods of 2010 -- in the conflict-hit zones in Khyber Pakhtunkhwa province and also in the Pakistani heartland -- from becoming a soft target for militants. However, clashes between the judiciary and Zardari, and the military's propensity to destabilize elected governments, could result in the democratic transition faltering and even failing, with grave consequences for an already fragile state.
RIZWAN TABASSUM/AFP/Getty Images
Somalia
If Somalia keeps heading south in 2011, the entire country could fall under Islamist insurgent control. Up to now, the country's U.N.-backed transitional government has withstood attacks from Islamist insurgents only thanks to protection from an African Union peacekeeping force; it remains weak and divided, a national government in name alone. Further, the capital city of Mogadishu is under perpetual siege by militants, a reality that has sent millions fleeing from their homes in this year alone. When the government does make gains on the insurgents, they are counted in mere city blocks, captured one by one.
The largest and most alarming insurgent group is al Shabab, which professes to desire the creation of a strict, conservative Muslim state and portions of whose leadership pledged allegiance to al Qaeda in early 2010. The group already controls most of southern and central Somalia and is currently trying to capture Mogadishu. Meanwhile, Somalia's neighbors fear that al Shabab will begin to export terrorism, as it did for the first time last summer in a series of bombings in Uganda during the World Cup.
That said, Somaliland in the country's northwest is an island of stability and democracy, and Puntland in the northeast is relatively peaceful, if troubled by Islamists and pirate gangs.
The best hope for Somalia is for its forces to exploit the divisions among the insurgency to recapture territory, particularly in Mogadishu. International support, already forthcoming, will help. But so would a lot of luck.
KATE HOLT/AFP/Getty Images
Lebanon
Still smarting from a war with Israel in 2006 that left a precarious balance of power between Christians and Islamic fundamentalists, Lebanon today is arguably more than ever on the brink.
In the coming months, an international tribunal is expected to issue indictments against Hezbollah members for the assassination of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a step that could spark sectarian strife throughout the country. Most alarmingly, the indictments could unravel a fragile inter-Lebanese power-sharing agreement reached in Doha in 2008. In that scenario, Lebanon could see a return to political assassinations, all-out sectarian strife, or attempts by Hezbollah to assert greater political or military control. None of these scenarios are far-fetched in the coming year; indeed, they have all happened in Lebanon's very recent past. The fact that it is so hard to imagine both how the current status quo may survive and how exactly it will unravel says volumes about the state of uncertainty and shakiness which afflicts the country.
In addition to Lebanon's internal political unraveling, the country risks sliding back into war with Israel. Nearly five years after the 2006 war, relations between the two countries are both exceptionally quiet and uniquely dangerous -- for the same reason: On both sides of Israel's northern border, the build-up in military forces and threats of an all-out war that would spare neither civilians nor civilian infrastructure, together with the worrisome prospect of its regionalization, have had a deterrent effect on all. Today, none of the parties can soberly contemplate the prospect of a conflict that would come at greater cost to themselves, be more difficult to contain, and be less predictable in outcome than anything they witnessed in the past.
But that is only the better half of the story. Beneath the surface, tensions are mounting with no obvious safety valve. The deterrence regime has helped keep the peace, but the process it perpetuates -- mutually reinforcing military preparations, Hezbollah's growing and more sophisticated arsenal, escalating Israeli threats -- pulls in the opposite direction and could trigger the very result it has averted so far.
ANWAR AMRO/AFP/Getty Images
Nigeria
Nigeria's 2010 was about as rough as they come: The country's president disappeared on medical leave -- and then died -- hundreds were killed in sectarian violence between Muslims and Christians in the country's middle belt, and a rebel amnesty in the oil-producing Niger Delta region completely unraveled, leading to a string of bombing attacks and kidnappings.
And 2011 also looks rocky for Africa's most populous country. A presidential election is slated to be held in the spring; the last election in 2007 left international observers awestruck by flagrant intimidation and ballot stuffing. Voting in Nigeria has never been a pretty affair, and despite promises to reform the electoral system, the old habits of intimidation and vote buying die hard. After the polling does takes place, post-election turmoil is also entirely possible, particularly if one region or group is unhappy with the result. Nigeria's many regions -- north, south, west, east, and everything in between -- count on office-holders to pass out patronage and favors, so the stakes of losing are high.
Whoever it may be, Nigeria's new leader will have urgent tasks ahead. The rebellion in the Niger Delta is flaring up again, with militants promising to continue attacking oil facilities and government offices. A once effective anti-corruption commission has lost its momentum. And vast economic inequality is the order of the day, leaving oil wealth in the hands of a few while the majority of the country's 140 million people languish.
PIUS UTOMI EKPEI/AFP/Getty Images
Guinea
Guinea enters 2011 on a hopeful path. In December, the West African country inaugurated its first-ever elected leader, Alpha Condé. After decades of strongman rule, followed by a 2009 coup, this new leadership seems nothing less than miraculous.
Yet the back-story offers some sense of just how deep tensions run. After the country's president died in December 2008, a small group of military leaders took over, declaring themselves the new leaders of Guinea. So corrupt and ineffectual had the former president been that many welcomed the junta's rule. But it soon became apparent that the military president, Moussa Dadis Camara, was equally inept. The pinnacle of that failure came in September 2009, when his troops massacred over 150 peaceful protestors in a local stadium.
International condemnation flooded the country, putting pressure on the junta to hold elections. Meanwhile, Camara was shot by a fellow junta member and sent to Morocco for treatment. His successor, Gen. Sekouba Konate, appointed a civilian interim leader and organized the recent election.
But throughout the junta's brief reign, the military took the opportunity to enrich and entrench its role in the economy, a fact that remains today despite the nominal civilian leadership. Guinea's military now has a strong stake in controlling mineral wealth -- the country is the world's largest producer of bauxite -- and other major industries. In the past, it has used strong-arm tactics to get its way, economically and otherwise, and this old habit will surely die hard. Having tasted the fruits of power under the junta, the military may not so easily return to its barracks.
ISSOUF SANOGO/AFP/Getty Images
Democratic Republic of the Congo
Years after the official end of the Second Congo War, which raged from 1998 to 2003 and was responsible for up to 4.5 million deaths, whole swathes of the enormous Central African country remain in upheaval. In the eastern Kivu provinces, an undisciplined national army battles with rebel groups for territorial control. Amid the frenzy of violence and rape that follows in their path, the world's largest U.N. peacekeeping force is at a loss to protect even those civilians that live close to its bases.
Lurking behind the conflict is Congo's vast natural wealth, the very embodiment of the so-called resource curse. Government, militants, private corporations, and local citizens all angle to tap the gold, cobalt, copper, coltan and host of other minerals under the country's soil -- which are focused in the east and south of the country. Meanwhile, the central government lies nearly 1,000 miles to the west, separated from its eastern provinces by impenetrable jungle, a different language, and ethnicity. Rebel groups still roam the eastern border regions, exercising their authority with impunity and cruelty. Neither the government nor rebel groups have the strength to win, but both have the resources to keep fighting indefinitely.
Adding to the misery are appalling humanitarian conditions. Only a third of Congolese in rural areas have access to clean water, an estimated 16,000 children die each year before ever reaching the age of five, and life expectancy has actually fallen by five years since 1990.
Unless the Congolese and regional governments try different tactics, there is no end in sight to Congo's troubles. In an ideal world, military campaigns in North and South Kivu provinces would be suspended until better-trained troops can be deployed -- troops than can carry out targeted operations while protecting civilians. Meanwhile, governments in Africa's Great Lakes region should convene a summit and negotiate agreements on economic, land, and population-movement issues. A worst-case scenario would see more of the same: a mosaic of armed groups in eastern Congo continue to fight indefinitely, with civilians paying a terrible price.
Gwenn Dubourthoumieu/AFP/Getty Images


















(33)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE
MARTY MARTEL
1:55 PM ET
December 29, 2010
Narrow, misplaced focus on Pakistan
International Crisis Group (ICG) looks at Pakistan with a grossly misplaced focus, totally missing the fact that Pakistan projects sympathetic image as a victim of terror, even as it is, in fact, the creator of terrorism. Pakistan continues to shelter, nurture, support and protect innumerable terrorist outfits on its soil.
Nobody forced Pakistani government to facilitate relocation of Osama bin Laden from Sudan to Afghanistan in 1996. Benazir Bhutto’s democratic government of Pakistan chose to do so of its own will.
Nobody forced Pakistani Army and Intelligence to create what ex-CIA official Bruce Reidel called ‘this jihadist Frankenstein’ monster in 1990s. Pakistani Army and Intelligence chose to do so with the full financing provided by Pakistan’s democratic governments at the time.
Pakistan boldly holds the Western world to ransom. It garners generous financial aid and military supplies from the US and has successfully projected itself as recourse of last resort in its geographical theatre. It runs circles around international sanctions and bans by nurturing a large number of home-grown terrorist outfits forever changing nomenclature. In addition, it maintains seemingly endless supply of freelance non-state actors that allow it the fig-leaf of plausible deniability.
And in a masterful demonstration of how to manage chaos, Pakistan keeps its domestic situation in destabilized ferment and flux by stoking sectarian, that is, Sunni versus Shiite violence, and religious tensions between Islamic progressives and fundamentalists.
For the further bamboozling of the West, Pakistan uses its blow-hot-blow-cold relationship with the Pakistani and Afghan Taliban and its hosting of the Al Qaeda as adroit bargaining chips.
Pakistan blackmails international community in coughing up ever increasing doses of foreign aid by maintaining innumerable terrorist outfits on its soil just as Pakistan blackmails international community by hinting at the possibility of its nuclear weapons falling in the hands of Taliban/Al Qaeda axis while it was Pakistani Army that created Taliban to begin with. Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton’s national security advisor told 9/11 Commission in March, 2004 that ’Pakistani Army was the midwife of Taliban’. UN report on Bhutto killing published in April, 2010 confirmed this fact when it stated that "The PAKISTANI MILITARY ORGANIZED AND SUPPORTED THE TALIBAN TO TAKE CONTROL OF AFGHANISTAN IN 1996“.
Declassified DIA Washington D.C., "IIR (intelligence Information Report) Pakistan Involvement in Afghanistan," dated November 7, 1996 states how "Pakistan's ISI is heavily involved in Afghanistan," and also details different roles various ISI officers play in Afghanistan. Stating that Pakistan uses sizable numbers of its Pashtun-based Frontier Corps in Taliban-run operations in Afghanistan, the document clarifies that, "these Frontier Corps elements are utilized in command and control; training; and when necessary combat“.
Declassified U.S. Department of State, Cable "Pakistan Support for Taliban" from Islamabad dated Sept. 26, 2000 states that "while Pakistani support for the Taliban has been long-standing, the magnitude of recent support is unprecedented." In response Washington orders the U.S. Embassy in Islamabad to immediately confront Pakistani officials on the issue and to advise Islamabad that the U.S. has "seen reports that Pakistan is providing the Taliban with materiel, fuel, funding, technical assistance and military advisors. [The Department] also understand[s] that large numbers of Pakistani nationals have recently moved into Afghanistan to fight for the Taliban, apparently with the tacit acquiescence of the Pakistani government." Additional reports indicate that direct Pakistani involvement in Taliban military operations has increased.
Pakistan created these terrorist outfits and so is in NO danger from these outfits. Sooner ICG discards such misconceptions, the better.
BILL KINSTONE
11:47 AM ET
December 31, 2010
Misplaced Focus on Pakistan
MARTY MARTEL is the one that seems to have a "misplaced focus"...
One one hand he cites U.S. declassified documents that clearly show (correctly) that Pakistan's "situation" is CLEARLY seen for what it is by the west. On the other hand he makes reference "to the further bamboozling of the West."
Your comment: Pakistan created these terrorist outfits and so is in NO danger from these outfits." is flat out ignorant. Pakistan is and remains in constant danger of effectively imploding.
The inmates (Pakistan's ISI, double dealing corrupt govt officials, terrorists that killed enough people in 2010 to establish Pakistan as the suicide bombing capital of the world) are already dominating the playing field. The question is can they be prevented from flat out taking over the asylum?
Buy a clue Marty. The west knows perfectly well what Pakistan is. Pakistan is an accident looking to happen. Has been for years, as the article properly pointed out.
As frustrating as it is to even consider Pakistan a lukewarm "ally" in fighting terror the west has limited power to affect a 'perfect cure."
Options are limited, sadly but true. All the west can do is try to do whatever it can to avoid a total disaster and get as 'much" (granted too little" support that it can get.
Moderates in high places in Pakistan have difficulty buying life insurance. THAT is the power the "inmates" wield. The county is infested.
No easy answers for sure. Pakistan remains on the brink. Of course this was the FOCUS of the article in the first place.
The reasons the west has to deal with Pakistan are so clear to anyone with even a grasp of geopolitical reality that I won't even mention them.
NAHRIAL
1:00 PM ET
December 30, 2010
Turkey
Unfortunately, your magazine has failed to mention the Kurdish Issue in Turkey, which has been on for over two decades...
In Turkey, over 15 million Kurds live. They are a non-Turkic ethnic group who were mentioned 401BC by the Greek worrior Xenophone, Italian merchant, Marco Polo and most of the orietalists who visited the Middle East in 16th century and after.
I hope that you eaither add this course of war to your magazine or it is going to be non-professionalism of you Foreign Policy.
Best regards
BOXUAN
8:25 PM ET
December 30, 2010
Burma/Myanmar
That's another possible powder keg missed on the list. The military government wouldn't like to see newly-realeased Aung San Suu Kyi contesting the legitimacy of the general election 2010. There could very likely be conflicts between her supporters and the government.
IBNBATTUTA
1:21 PM ET
January 9, 2011
Burma in 2011
Having spent three years living in Burma from 2006-2009, living through the bloody failure of the Saffron Revolution and the carnage of Cyclone Nargis, I think the reason why Burma will continue not to be particularly unstable or filled with open conflict is that the government holds all the physical power, and everyone knows that they have no compunction about using it. Having seen people's hopes raised up in September, 2007 only to be crushed utterly, I think it would require an entire new generation to grow up to challenge the military directly. I see little hope of meaningful change this year, or indeed over the next five years. Aung San Suu Kyi is free, and has massive popular support, but it will be difficult indeed for her to have any real input into real change in the country. She's free, but still imprisoned in a slightly more gilded cage.
SNAGY
11:39 AM ET
December 31, 2010
Korea
I thought North and South Korea would be at the top of your list.
BILL KINSTONE
12:13 PM ET
December 31, 2010
North Korea
Probably would be if North Korean had any support from the rest of the world. Fortunately it doesn't. Even China has no real sympathy for NK anymore.
Oh the situation is a potential powder keg for sure. NK is run by the lunatic son of a nutcase.
Only answer appears to be the reunification of North and South Korea. The question is how and when it could happen and at what terrible loss of life will be paid.
KONASTEPHEN
2:40 PM ET
December 31, 2010
Korean reunification
I predict that when the Great Leader Kim Chong Ill kicks off to his new permanent residence in hell, his son will have a stroke of genius and go Gorby on the old power structure. Koreans are smart and they know that reunification will only make them stronger as a people, much like it has made Germany stronger. Asia today is increasingly competitive and the Korean people will embrace the challenge of integrating north and south for the added economic muscle it'll eventually give them. The key will be that the poisonous ideology of totalitarian socialism must not be allowed free reign. Some sort of denazification process will be a critical component of a future strong and united Korea. The West (meaning the U.S.) will need to counterbalance China's looming presence next door to forestall any meddling by the Chicomms. In the end it'll happen because the alternative (nuclear conflict) is unthinkable and abhorrent to everyone.
BILL KINSTONE
1:19 PM ET
January 1, 2011
KONASTEPHEN's comments on NK
I basically agree with KONASTEPHEN.
The problems between NK and SK are actually finally fixable -- at least in theory. With China now content to let their neighbor reunify the Koreans have a chance.
Of course just knowing the route from point A to point B doesn't get you there. NK is such a closed society the path is sure to be difficult.
MARK MATIS
12:20 PM ET
December 31, 2010
Bill Kinstone...
is obviously one of the Only Ones:
http://whentennesseepigsfly.blogspot.com/
When even the BATFE agents are admitting that their management is corrupt and evil, JUST HOW BAD do you think things REALLY are, Bill?
BILL KINSTONE
12:54 PM ET
January 1, 2011
Mark Matis
Things are bad. Any person with an IQ over room temperature knows that.
It is not so much the "problems" that I disagree with you about. It is your idiotic view of intelligent "solutions"... i.e. a bloody civil war.
Shooting your mouth off online is your right. You pick up a gun and start shooting any of MY fellow Americans and I'd volunteer to pull the switch on the electric chair you would belong in.
I'd not consider the electric used to be improper use of my tax dollars, either.
ALWAYSRIGHT
2:02 PM ET
December 31, 2010
The big one
Forgot the riots in the U.S. when hyperinflation knocks on the door.
TESS_COMMENTS
6:30 PM ET
December 31, 2010
Mexico
The $400 million annual aid package from the United States to Mexico should be used to Catch, fine and Deport Illegal Immigrants that are in the USA.
It is time for the US Federal Government to Enforce Current US Immigration Laws.
Protect Legal US Residents, NOW.
FAT.MAN
2:52 PM ET
January 2, 2011
It is time for the US Federal Government to Enforce Current US I
You mean like US immigration laws precluding individual states from enacting their OWN immigration laws?
Under US immigration laws, being an illegal immigrant is a CIVIL (not criminal) violation. Hence, how can Arizona make being an illegal immigrant a CRIMINAL violation?
Somehow, I suspect you don't want THOSE US immigration laws enforced...
BRAINWORMS
11:32 PM ET
January 5, 2011
You mean white Europeans?
You mean white Europeans?
POLITICALLY INCORRECT BENJAMIN
6:39 PM ET
December 31, 2010
Wow, I am impressed how the writer missed the biggest one?
I cannot believe how most Americans have ignored the arms build up, production of arms, and type of arms that China is doing, this article shows how deep America's head is in the sand.
Just in the last week China has come forward and announced they were building a new bridge to North Korea to aid in transportation and shipment of goods. They also said they were going to fund the expansion of the industrial complex in the North Korean Capital, and they bought exclusive rights to North Korea's main shipping port. I don't have to tell you that all of these are a violation of the UN sanctions, after all an expert should know that. But the rabbit hole goes much deeper than that;
Two days ago China showed the world their own personal fourth Generation Fighter Jet, they own more Flankers than the Russians who make them so why do they need to build their own.
They have deployed their new Carrier Sinking Missle (Designed for US Carriers of course) all over China's coast and the weapon was designed specifically for American ships. It's a work in progress but if you want to see the testing of it just pull up you tube and look up clips from this summer of UFO's over China, it's painfully obvious to the trained eye what it is.
Obama is now deploying the third US Aircraft Carrier Fleet to the Asian Theatre, now the USS Ronald Reagan is joining the other two. Interestingly enough all three carrier groups are in different locations seperating our allies and China; Guam-China, Japan-China, South Korea- China. Think for yourself.
We know that Iran received medium range Nuclear Capable missle from N. Korea through China and we know Iran Nuclear Scientist are working with the Nuclear Scientist of N.Korea, a new team just arrived and the Iranians pay North Korea Great money to be a part of their program. China also receives a great deal of money and oil for allowing the two countries to exchange arms and scientist through their borders.
I can write for hours on the dangers I see exploding and all the editor did was list small pockets of civil war in undeveloped countries and throw in a few pictures of conflict.
America is going to wake up one morning and find itself at war with China and wonder how it happened, it's unfolding right now, right infront of our eyes.
China has the capability to not only take out all of our military bases in the Asian Arena in one stroke but also wipe out most of our navy at the same time. And do you think for a second once they have set up control in that region they are going to allow us back in? Do you honestly believe that Obama will use Nuclear Weapons against China if we are attacked abroad. He is currently converting our Nuclear Stockpile into Hypersonic Kenetic Weapons which are designed to take out a small target. Plus, he has to back up his Nobel BS Prize.
I am not familiar with the writer but I do believe they are completely clueless to what America is facing and why we are bent over a barrel with our arms tied behind our backs. The writer might be as clueless as our current Foriegn Affairs Dept?
If you would like to argue with any of these points I beg you to go to South Korean, Russian, and Indian news sites and pay close attention to the articles. The foriegn Policy with China is being sheilded from American eyes and I am not sure why.
In my opinion I believe that we remained pacifist and business partners with China for so long that we ignored their weapons buildup to protect our prosperity. Now that they feel we owe them for saving us by buying out our debt they feel they need to be the influence in that arena, and because we are corrupt and incapable we should have no business in that arena.
I would love to be wrong, only history will tell, at this point it's a matter of opinion. The writer wrote of small conflicts like most others writting the same types of articles for the last 50yrs. But the way I see it we are headed quickly for the largest war this planet has ever seen and we are doing it at the speed of modern technology.
Have a good new year, lets start the new one by opening our eyes to the bigger picture?
Benjamin
STRATEGOS307
8:14 PM ET
December 31, 2010
we can still have some time
It will still take China a while before they're ready to take on the U.S., possibly decades. We still have time to make good decisions and turn things around to our advantage.
We should not be thinking in terms of "stopping" China; that's nearly impossible, unless they trip over their own weaknesses. Instead, why not allow a ring of competitors to build up around China? For example, if countries like India and Japan are threatened by China's military buildup, and almost inevitable territorial pressure, don't you think India and Japan would not respond by their own preparations? Yes they would; unless we act like we can "take care of everything" and actively discourage them from strengthening themselves, by our military presence and foreign policy.
POLITICALLY INCORRECT BENJAMIN
8:33 PM ET
December 31, 2010
I can't agree more and that
I can't agree more and that is the way our state department is thinking. Four months ago we agreed to build a Nuclear power plant in Vietnam, which is a communist country. They even gave the Vietmanese leaders a tour of our Nuclear Powered Air Craft Carriers.
It's impossible for me to make this stuff up, so all that don't know please pull it up through google, you can find it through foriegn news, usually not American. By the way, yes the Chinese were pissed once again.
There is no defeating the Chinese, and there is no longer out businessing them since they own all of our wealth and ship into this country everything we use. The US will be crippled because the US no longer produces most of what we use.
The old expression "Got a tiger by it's tail?" doesn't work here. There is no expression other than "bend over and take it". Please give us one advantage on the worlds stage we have over China? China is all ready in control and we are being shoved aside.
Benjamin
ITCHYVET
3:59 AM ET
January 2, 2011
China's Alleged Military 'Threat' to U.S. Hedgemony.
Oh Deary me Benjamin, so you've got a hard on for the Chinese, Gee Wizz, wonder why that doesn't surpise me one bit.
You accuse China of gearing up for a war, but totaly ignore the amount of funding the U.S. spends on an annual basis doing the exact same thing.
In fact only a couple of days ago a media release stated the U.S. spend more then the whole World's GDP on it's military.
Tell us again, how China is the claimed threat.
Consider too, a publication released by the U.S. Administration in 2000, called P.A.N.P.C. Rebuilding U.S.'s Defences, I'd suggest you google it and do some homework, this document spells out loudly and clearly for the whole World, (and even Americans) exactly what the plan is for us all.
It also spells out clearly, what the U.S. intends to do to any nation that has the umitigated gall and audacity to ever challenge their hedgemony. Read it an weep.
Then tell us again, how much of a threat the chinese are to you.
Has it occured to you, they too can read english, and no doubt have read this document as well, understand a damn site better then you, the threat it imposes upon them, so it's no surpise to me, that they would modernise their military enabling them to defend themselves against U.S. aggression should it arise.
Moreover, IF the Chinese wish to bring the U.S. to their knees, (which I seriously doubt, who will then buy their junk they manufactuer) all they need to do is call in the paper owed to them by the U.S.
Such a event will mean INSTANT BANKRUPTCY for the U.S. and WW 3.
Get educated a bit, see the U.S. from OUTSIDE your borders for a change, then you'll be enightened somewhat.
CHECKMOOT
11:50 AM ET
January 2, 2011
China
I think that China has developed enough military capability that the chance of our attacking China are quite slight. In fact non-existant and as the waepons they are developing are of a defensive nature we have no concern about them initiating a war with the U.S. I just do not understand why we provoke them by keeping military assets off their coast. It's as though we are goading them to spend more on defense.
POLITICALLY INCORRECT BENJAMIN
2:32 PM ET
January 2, 2011
Lets talk China for a moment
Two months ago I read a US report that suspected that China would not complete it's stealth fighter jet program until 2025. Yet early last week pictures were taken of the new Chinese Stealth Fighter jet that is not a cloan, it is their own design. Their new missle systems are highly advanced and a part of the new arms race with Hypersonic Kenetic Weapons. We have grossly underestimated the Chinese growth and Technology and what they are capable of. They have been making Nuclear Weapons and missles since the 60's and we have no idea how many they have and what their capabilities are. Most people do not know that the Chinese are currently testing their weapons in Afghanistan against our troops, just like we did to the Russians through the CIA during their tour in Afghanistan in the 80's.
Correct, we are prevoking them and I don't know why our state dept is doing it?
Obama is a coward and would rather send 5 million American men to death before he used a Nuclear Weapon one to save them.
Look up the Minotaur IV project online. I was quite surprised to learn about this new American, Russian, and Chinese arms race through a small article on Russian News. It's a secret weapon project where they are stripping apart our ICBM's and converting them into a Kenetic Energy weapon to take out a bunker or building. The Company being paid billions of US tax payer dollars to tear down our Multi Billion Dollar ICBM's and convert them into a Low Earth Orbit Bullet is named Orbital Sciences. When I learned of this last week I could see their web site online, as of today I can no longer view any of their web pages.
Total war is ugly and when you say it could happen you get a few people who get angry and start throwing insults, thats mainly because it's worse than their mind can accept. It's like a child covering their ears and yelling "No NO No NO NO, I cant hear you." But because they put their head in the sand it doesn't mean it wont happen.
This last year China stopped the exportation of all rare earth elements even though they are the largest producer. They violate all UN sanctions willingly when it comes to Iran and North Korea. In a Press statement two days ago a spokesman said that the US involvement in the region has interfered with regional stability and that the US needs to be Constructive.
Our President is not only a coward, but he is incredibly weak and the rest of the world has figured that out. Obama has made America the laughing stock of the Planet. Even Putin won't meet with him and when he finally does he sits him down and gives him a one hour lecture oven Russian History.
When China doesn't want us in their Region of power any more they are going to remove us. I don't think for a second that our President has the balls to fight back, but even if he had the balls how would we defeat China? What is the Nobel Prize winner going to do, is he going to further bend us over for peace, is he going to send millions of young Americans to the grave, or is he going to Carpet Bomb China with Nuclear Weapons?
China is not a small country we can go in with our military and take out. It's the heart of the largest landmass on this planet and it has billions of people who would be willing soldiers to protect their prosperity. They have the worlds oil wealth right next door, they have the world richest mineral reserves, and one day they are going to say "We don't need you anymore, stay out of our world!"
China has been using more spying against us than we and Russia used against each other during the Cold War. China is the War, China is the threat, and China is the enemy. China will bring us to our knees in many ways at the same time. Sell all US bonds, take out our bases, take out our Navy, and who knows what else. Then they will sit back with their feet propped up on a table and ask us we we plan to do about it? If we think we can do anything we are fools, and if you believe for a second that the US military can defeat the Chinese you obviously are not only a fool, but you believe the BS our Govt has been putting out. I remember the last time the Chinese forces attacked American Forces, we were completely over run and pushed all the way back to the sea in South Korea. Back then it was with shear numbers, now it is even more numbers but this time they are better trained, are healthy and educated, and have technology by their side.
HDS26234
6:43 PM ET
December 31, 2010
Conflicts, no end in sight
Is it not true that the very USA, is out and all over the world, with its horrendous war machine and instead of creating peace all over it, the USA is creating the most unsolvable problems on a daily basis? And yes, while the Founding Fathers are weeping in their graves, seeing their America once again, a monster of an evil Militaristic Empire. George Washington said this: Overgrown military establishments are under any form of government inauspicious to liberty and are to be regarded as particularly hostile to Republican liberty". He also said these words: "No pecuniary consideration is more urgent than the regular redemption and discharge of the public debt; on none can dealy be more injurious, or an economy of time more valuable". Thomas Jefferson said these words: "The principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, in the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale". He also said these words: "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations, entangling allaiances with none". Of a more recent venture: General Douglas MacArthur said these words: "I am concerned for the security of our great nation; not so much because of any threat from without, but because of the insidious forces working from within". General and President Dwight D. Eisenhower said this: "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed". I the above mentioned redblooded Americans were to rise what would they say? Let the readers of my comment reply with an answer as to what this Americans would say were they ro rise! I rest my case for now!
BILL KINSTONE
1:48 PM ET
January 1, 2011
HDS26234
Washington, Jefferson, MacArthur, and Eisenhower quotes can fix the problems of the world. This is your case?
I think you are going to have a very difficult time getting them in the same room... but if you do I'd bet you a Ben Franklin they would disagree about a great deal.
Eisenhower would probably not say too much... since he would likely be texting Kay Summersby.
REVRIGHT
8:45 PM ET
December 31, 2010
it is time to look at the
it is time to look at the world as whole and not just a pie chart you deliver in a speech or diplomatic presentation. the world is changing at a very rapid pace. people want for everything and dont want to wait in line for nothing. it is time to get out of the way and let the cards fall where they may. isolationism is the best principle for any sovereign nation at this point. problem is, china and russia are the only sovereign nations left. they collusively put the usa where it is right now, along with internal subversives that have done all they can to destroy the usa. pray for your children america, i know i am.
GIOFLS
8:20 AM ET
January 1, 2011
War happens when
War happens when military/political power mis-align with economic power. It is independent of race or religion. There is a real risk to the economic power of the West. Asian economic power is rising much faster than their military power; or conversely, Western military power is becoming much stronger than its economic power.
Should the trend continue, there is a real risk of major global war. Unfortunately for those of us not in the political power circles, that appears to be govt's only historical solution these imbalances.
BILL KINSTONE
2:20 PM ET
January 1, 2011
GIOFLS's illogic
War is rooted in the decision of participating nations to take a blood shedding approach to improving their own economic health.
Since there is NOT a single developed nation that could possibly want a global bloodbath (since NO "developed" nation could benefit) the risk of a "global war" is so remote that it really can't be intelligently discussed.
GeoPolitical realities are pretty clear in this regard. To have a global war the "big boys" would have to buy in to the idea that a "scorched earth" policy would benefit them.
No way. No how. In fact the logic in NOT having a global war is probably the only thing developed nations agree on.
FREE ALL MEN
9:10 AM ET
January 1, 2011
There will be peace on Earth when
We as the human race, have had the answers to peace for over 2000 years, but the source of the knowledge has been marginalized by too many. The answer to the end of wars is the same for ending the suffering of those who hunger for food simply to exist.
The many who are ungrateful, hateful and otherwise foolish by denying God are the root cause of this planet's miseries. I say collectively, the word of God has been ignored because of our relative comfort, laziness and/or state of denial.
Do not dare yourself confusion on the word, because it is there, and it is easily understood, when your mind is free to accept on faith the word, until the whole word is read. Imagine the word as a whole sentence, which you must complete to get the sentence's message. But the word is a long sentence, and it is called the Bible. Do not be afraid of those words, but accept them for what they are: God's guidance.
The answer my friends is one simple word: Liberty. Do not deny this for you and your family, but for world peace, do not deny this to your neighbors. It is our collective cause to remove all tyrants, dictators, communists and fascists from the entire planet. Until all men are free from the boot and gun point of such tyrants, there will be war and famine. Let it be known to the world that no such governments on Earth are legal nor supportable.
We have cast our lot with the devil too long, by benefiting from cheap labor of nations that enslave their populace for inhumane hours and for little recompense. Let no free men enjoy the benefits of another's slavery, lest you seed more war for your grandchildren.
Giving money to feed the poor is the easy way out, for tomorrow, the need is still there. It's not for lack of food, but for lack of will to free them from thieving overlords. Let no free men ignore the plight of his fellow man's impoverishment, only to witness his family die of hunger.
Let my people go! Free my people! Let no man enslave another, and peace on Earth will be near. Let no man apply his corruption blatantly and inhumanely. These directives are the word of God. If you don't believe in God, then surely the words alone will make sense to all who deny.
Happy New Year to all, and may all experience liberty as a divine right.
NOMAD
10:44 AM ET
January 1, 2011
Unrest in USA
You forgot the USA. With municipalities and states going bankrupt the potential for civil unrest increases. Stay steadfast and loyal to the constitution, law abiding Americans!
DOMESTOS
5:44 PM ET
January 1, 2011
What is going on (re: Mexico)?
This quote is from the section about Mexico:
"The press is under increasing pressure to self-censor. One paper in Ciudad Juárez went as far as asking, in an open letter to the cartels, what it was that they were allowed to publish. "
There is a link to the open letter that you mention. I read it, thought it was quite interesting indeed, yet found no sign of the reason why it was referenced here, namely journalists asking permission to the cartels as to what they could publish. This is, uhm, what's the word I'm looking for here, surprising? Please tell me what's going on.
BILL KINSTONE
11:19 AM ET
January 2, 2011
LUKIFER = another nutcase
People like him belong in a cell... with heavy padding.
SMIRCOPUS
12:15 PM ET
January 2, 2011
Jeez mon
A woman I work with lost a sister because of the drug cartels in Mexico.
Mexico could turn around it's economy, if they had the balls. If they stripped away all laws against drug use and funded a massive build up of agricultural/industrial production of the most popularly consumed illegal pharmaceuticals.
It would make their economy the strongest in the world!
Tourism from the United States would drain our population. Immigration would soar! They'd have to build a fence on THEIR side to keep the s'medium Baby Gap popped collar t-shirt wearing douche-bags from exploding over THEIR border.
The biggest benefit of all is that the cartels would lose their revenue stream. Of course they will never go away, but they would no longer be so blatantly obvious, with turf wars spilling into the streets and across the US's border, as they do today.
I'm surprised China and North Korea were left out, and how the focus on Pakistan is on the humanitarian issues and not the military conflicts that are directly affecting our soldiers, right now.
I'm not surprised that 6 of the 16 were on the African continent. Africa will eventually dissolve into all out civil war, with 1st world nations cleaning up the mess and dividing the natural resources amongst themselves.
I'm knocked flat by how most of the comments on this article attack the United States.
One thread I followed is sure that the United States will break out in civil war; a few think it will happen within 6 months.
Where do these people live? When I go out into the world I see nothing that indicates armed conflicts breaking out. There are no skirmishes, or protesters rioting . . . it's their fantasy that they'll get to live out the conflicts they're playing on X-Box live.
To that I say, take a walk. Get to know your neighbors. Find a woman to romance. Put down your game controller and get a life.
BILL KINSTONE
6:39 PM ET
January 2, 2011
SMIRCOPUS
SMIRCOPUS: "One thread I followed is sure that the United States will break out in civil war; a few think it will happen within 6 months. Where do these people live? When I go out into the world I see nothing that indicates armed conflicts breaking out. There are no skirmishes, or protesters rioting . . . it's their fantasy that they'll get to live out the conflicts they're playing on X-Box live."
LOL... I hear you. There certainly is no shortage of simpletons online.
They live in La La Land.
MARK MATIS
3:28 PM ET
January 5, 2011
Bill Kinstone...
Keep on keepin' on, bro! Looks like they have verified that the gun used to kill that Border Patrol agent was supplied by BATFE. But OBVIOUSLY you must be right, since you are one of the Only Ones. OF COURSE there won't be civil war in the US, because Our Betters have told us so. Who could possibly believe otherwise?
Nothing to see here. Keep moving...