In geo-political denotation, an agreement that once signed, causes an end to hostilities PROVIDED that the conditions to the aforementioned agreemnet are met. Failure to comply with the accord conditions can result in the original action stopped by the Accord to be carried out as if no agreement was ever effected.
Germany and Japan are still bound by Accords both signed in 1945, stating that if they ever became belligerents in their respective theatres again, the allies would crush them. These Accords are still in effect.
Saddam Hussein signed an Accord in 1991 allowing him to retain power PROVIDED:
1.) He destroyed his WMD stockpiles and showed proof of their disposal.
2.) That he stand down his military arm and cease to be a threat to the gulf region
3.) That he forfeit and disavow all claims to Kuwait and other regions.
Said Accord trumped any other agreements that he had with such entities as the UN. When Saddam refused to comply with the Accord, Iraq was invaded (An action that was halted due to the 1991 Accord) and Saddam was removed as a leadership entity. It is interesting to note that the UN refused to enforce the Accord due to not only the UN profiting from trading with Saddam ( in violation of a trade embargo) but France, Russia and Australia were also found complicit in this action.
Saddam Hussein signed an Accord in 1991 allowing him to retain power PROVIDED:
1.) He destroyed his WMD stockpiles and showed proof of their disposal.
2.) That he stand down his military arm and cease to be a threat to the gulf region
3.) That he forfeit and disavow all claims to Kuwait and other regions.
Said Accord trumped any other agreements that he had with such entities as the UN. When Saddam refused to comply with the Accord, Iraq was invaded (An action that was halted due to the 1991 Accord) and Saddam was removed as a leadership entity. It is interesting to note that the UN refused to enforce the Accord due to not only the UN profiting from trading with Saddam ( in violation of a trade embargo) but France, Russia and Australia were also found complicit in this action.
by Ironbrand February 01, 2007
A leader or a leader of a collective group with a thinking process similar to that of Neville Chamberlain who stated "We have achieved peace for our time." Unfortunately he did not, as the guns erupted again across Europe 1 September 1939. In clnclusion, a very dangerous and delusionary mindset.
The declaration of the current House Speaker that we can simply leave Iraq quickly and En Masse without paying for it down the road (a more massive war at a later date) is evidence that there is a serious issue regarding a Chamberlain Mentality.
by Ironbrand February 01, 2007
- A member of a French commune
- The more pejorative definition: an ultra-violent French Marxist faction that arose at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war with the sole intent of throwing down the government and creating a proletariat paradise. The end result they sought was a fully state owned infra with high taxes and few freedoms. In this description, a communard is no better then a Trotskyite red; it is a fact that when the reds sought to bring their revolution to the world starting in 1918, France and Bulgaria were the most receptive to their message and as such were guilty of some repugnant actions in the name of Communism. Contrast France's actions with that of Germany or the UK to get a better picture.
- The more pejorative definition: an ultra-violent French Marxist faction that arose at the conclusion of the Franco-Prussian war with the sole intent of throwing down the government and creating a proletariat paradise. The end result they sought was a fully state owned infra with high taxes and few freedoms. In this description, a communard is no better then a Trotskyite red; it is a fact that when the reds sought to bring their revolution to the world starting in 1918, France and Bulgaria were the most receptive to their message and as such were guilty of some repugnant actions in the name of Communism. Contrast France's actions with that of Germany or the UK to get a better picture.
"You americans need more government control; the freedom you have is a danger to the world."
"Freedom is a dangerous thing...especially to those who would deny it. Freedom could cause independent thought; can't have that!"
"The french believe in and support their government; they know what is best for their citizens. The high taxes we pay guarantee a working state, with out the dangerous freedoms you americans have!
(Middle finger gesture) Spoken like a true filthy Communard; shove your red faction bullshit up your ass!
"Freedom is a dangerous thing...especially to those who would deny it. Freedom could cause independent thought; can't have that!"
"The french believe in and support their government; they know what is best for their citizens. The high taxes we pay guarantee a working state, with out the dangerous freedoms you americans have!
(Middle finger gesture) Spoken like a true filthy Communard; shove your red faction bullshit up your ass!
by Ironbrand December 09, 2006
In the political realm, an aspect of a candidate that will cost them votes no matter how they spin the situation. This is factually based on the Election of 1960 where John F. Kennedys's religion cost him votes. A woman running for president would have such a factor attached.
John F. Kennedy was a practicing Catholic and the first such Catholic running for president. Due to this fact of his religion, it cost him votes in the election. A number of Nixon votes were for the most part Anti-Kennedy, not Pro-Nixon. Since that time, such an unavoidable factor against a candidate was referred to as a Kennedy Factor.
by Ironbrand January 23, 2007
"In geo-politics, there are no real friends or enemies, only friendly enemies or hostile friends" - Unknown -
The very dynamic theory of politics not between people or peoples of a region, but of the regions themselves. They can be as relatively simple as the 50 States of the USA and the Federal Government of that same entity to the highly complicated, such as the oil-producing Gulf States or the former USSR's constituent countries. Geo-Political relationships can also range from the fully justified to what would appear to be morally repugnant, but the actions themselves are purely neutral; the results of the actions are what should be subject to judgement calls.
The very dynamic theory of politics not between people or peoples of a region, but of the regions themselves. They can be as relatively simple as the 50 States of the USA and the Federal Government of that same entity to the highly complicated, such as the oil-producing Gulf States or the former USSR's constituent countries. Geo-Political relationships can also range from the fully justified to what would appear to be morally repugnant, but the actions themselves are purely neutral; the results of the actions are what should be subject to judgement calls.
Geo-Politics is in a constant state of flux depending on a lot of factors, from who holds the power to who has the resources to support an action. Some noted examples:
The USA allying with the USSR in WW II ( Germany was at the time a far bigger menace. Needless to say, the USSR's ideology would be eternally at conflict with ours.)
The Cold War that followed WW II was classic Geo-Politics at its best. Due to MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) ideology, there was no safe way the US and USSR could directly confront each other. So came the period of Tinpot Dictators supported by both sides and at least two major proxy wars ( Korea & Vietnam). The support to these oft times vicious and repressive regimes was concerned with controlling as much of the world as possible versus tending to the individuals needs in those countries.
With the fall of the Shah and the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran posed a serious threat to Gulf stability. Though at no time would Saddam have been considered a friend, his military could serve to defuse the potential Iranian flashpoint. As such he was aided in his war with Iran (1981-1988). The two countries laid waste to each other, leaving the rest of the gulf in relative peace.
One of the most important geo-political happening in the present day is once again the Gulf states. By no means should the Shiekhs' of theose countries be called our friends; Islamic Shari'a law is in conflict with much of what the US Republic holds dear, and there are factions within those countries that would like to see the USA destoyed. But as long as they are in power though, they represent a stable supplier of a needed world economic commodity (Oil). As long as this is a needed commodity, do not expect too much change from that region. Iran also is once more a potential flashpoint in the region, nuclear ambitions aside.
Israel is not necessarily our friend either, though at least society-wise Christianity sprang from Judaism and politics-wise a Parliament ( Knesset) is closer to our Congress then Shari'a law. Even though that is the case, Israel still has its own agenda ( A safe haven for those of Hebraic descent), and at times they do not always work in the best interest of the USA. They have been overly heavy-handed at times, even if they also have made attempts to settle the mater using detente.
A full discourse on this topic would take up one book if not several; this is perhaps a basic definition of the term to perhaps invoke more independent research from the reader.
The USA allying with the USSR in WW II ( Germany was at the time a far bigger menace. Needless to say, the USSR's ideology would be eternally at conflict with ours.)
The Cold War that followed WW II was classic Geo-Politics at its best. Due to MAD (Mutual Assured Destruction) ideology, there was no safe way the US and USSR could directly confront each other. So came the period of Tinpot Dictators supported by both sides and at least two major proxy wars ( Korea & Vietnam). The support to these oft times vicious and repressive regimes was concerned with controlling as much of the world as possible versus tending to the individuals needs in those countries.
With the fall of the Shah and the ascendancy of Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini, Iran posed a serious threat to Gulf stability. Though at no time would Saddam have been considered a friend, his military could serve to defuse the potential Iranian flashpoint. As such he was aided in his war with Iran (1981-1988). The two countries laid waste to each other, leaving the rest of the gulf in relative peace.
One of the most important geo-political happening in the present day is once again the Gulf states. By no means should the Shiekhs' of theose countries be called our friends; Islamic Shari'a law is in conflict with much of what the US Republic holds dear, and there are factions within those countries that would like to see the USA destoyed. But as long as they are in power though, they represent a stable supplier of a needed world economic commodity (Oil). As long as this is a needed commodity, do not expect too much change from that region. Iran also is once more a potential flashpoint in the region, nuclear ambitions aside.
Israel is not necessarily our friend either, though at least society-wise Christianity sprang from Judaism and politics-wise a Parliament ( Knesset) is closer to our Congress then Shari'a law. Even though that is the case, Israel still has its own agenda ( A safe haven for those of Hebraic descent), and at times they do not always work in the best interest of the USA. They have been overly heavy-handed at times, even if they also have made attempts to settle the mater using detente.
A full discourse on this topic would take up one book if not several; this is perhaps a basic definition of the term to perhaps invoke more independent research from the reader.
by Ironbrand February 01, 2007
The equivalent of photoshoppery, but in this instance, the Reuters News Agency attempting to dodge having to take credit for allowing doctored photographs to make the news is inexcusable!
Look! Its a picture of Yasser Arafat walking around Tel Aviv! Man, it looks like some one rotoreutered that pic!
by Ironbrand August 09, 2006