Iraq Study Group: Change Iraq strategy now

[naga_sadu]

i agree naga man, and i see why most of our hermanos / bhaijos / comrades choose to be wage-slaves rather than be their own bosses, and it is because it is a lot easier to depend on a salary for doing a bullshit mechanical job.

You're so right on that one!

also, we cannot ignore that this defeatist mentality has been having a proper breeding ground as well, that is, all conditions for such pathogen are right, and are kept right as well... serious subject anyway you look at it

The "breeding ground" is often placing the resources of a society into the hands of too few. Social mobility is 0. It's very hard to get any bank aid etc (for starting a small biz, learning a trade etc). But if you have $50 mil in assets, you can easily get a loan of $500 mil in a wink of the eye.

The corporate sector absorbs maybe 5%-10%. Ok- 25% the MOST of the population, that too the ones w/ enough $$$ resources to get a sound technical or professional education. This ensures a rat race- about the remaining 95-90% of the population rushing to fill in that 5%-10% "vacancy." It's like 90-95 people rushing away from a twister into a room that can hold only 5-10.

But those who get absorbed into that 5%-10% (Asian and S. American averages) get first world perks, and the remaining 90-95%....it's pretty paltry. Ok, so you have the public sector thrown in and they maybe absorb about 15% of the population. They'll definately be bound to the 5-10% on who the concentration of resources is on. The remainder is still fucked. This surely will be a fertile breeding ground for deteatism.

 

[dankedout]

Has anyone read the report yet ? Ive read about half of it already and its pretty interesting, basically from what i read it sounds like iraq and peace in the middle east is fucked. A lot of the recommendations the report made are recomendations that won't ever happen.....like us talking with Iran, that simply will not happen, atleast not in these administration.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

Bush and the rest of the american administration never considered that Iraq has existed for 7000 years under tribal or clan leadership with kings and dictators over them. They really don't know what democracy is, apart from a few of their more educated people who lived and were educated in Europe or the U.S.

Mesopotanian culture and civilization is at least 7000 years old, Iraq as a nation was created by the British mandate forces in 1932, out of three ex-Ottoman provinces: Mosul, Baghdad and Basra. Mosul is predominantely Kurd, Baghdad is predominantely Sunni and basra predominantely Shiite. The British knew how to divide and conquer. They put the smallest ethnic group (the Sunnis) in power, made them dependent of British military aid to stay in power, placed a puppet King (Faisal) as head of state to make it look like a monarchy (a better way to exercise total control than a Republic or Democracy).
Iraq has no whatsever experience of western-style democracy, it was tossed from one military dictatorship to another, until the Baath party and Saddam Hussein took power. The dislike and hate between the three ethnic communities has grown successively from the oppression and the brutal exactions to keep them in place. The country - which ethnically isn't a country - has only stayed together because of Saddam's regime, and when the Americans went in with the idea to create an obedient, democratic vassal state that delivered oil to the US, they unlocked Pandora's box.

A kid could figure it out really, Bush, Rumsfeldt and Cheney couldn't.

The Baker and Hamilton report doesn't really say anything that isn't evident to anyone not mixed up in the neo-con conspiracy, and some of their conclusions are straight out naive.
What more is, Baker uses the report to settle the score with his own failed initiatives in the Middle East conflict.
Linking the problems in Iraq to the Middle East conflict, and claiming that there cannot be a solution of the conflict in Iraq unless the conflict between Israel and the Arab nations is solved is political blackmail, that only plays in the hands of Islamic radicals.
Like if the hate between the Sunni and Shiite comunities would disappear if the dispute with Israel would be solved, where have I heard that before?

Oh yeah, the glorious leader of Iran; Ahmadinejad:

"Israel is the number one problem of the Arab world"

Not poverty or reforms towards better social conditions for the people in the Arab countries. Nope, Israel is the main problem that keeps Arabs sleepless at night. And how is the conflict supposed to be solved?

"Israel is a disgraceful stain on the Islamic world that must be eliminated."

Ahmadinejad, not Baker. Although so far, the Sunnis, the Shiites, the Kurds, the Syrians, the Iranians and the Israelis have all rejected the Baker Hamilton report (way to go Baker, you managed to please NOBODY with your plan). I see no future in it.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

rosy, so why don't they just divide the land three-ways, make independent states each one and divide equally three ways all incomes comming from oil production? there's a million dollar idea right there
paz.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

There's no easy answer to that question, but there are a lot of interests that does not want to see that happen.

The Sunnis do not want to see an Independent Shiite state, because it would fall directly under the influence of Iran.

The Syrians, the Turcs and the Iranians don't want to see an independant Kurdish state, because that could give the Kurdish minorities in their countries the idea to join them for independence.

The power elite in Iraq doesn't want to see the country desintegrate, because that would deprive them of their power and incomes.

Basically all the oil reserves are to be found in the Shiite province down south, and some up north in Kurd territory, would they want to share them with the Sunnis if they became independent?

In the Middle East, almost every country is a buffer zone between two other countries, and if you push one domino piece over, who knows how many others will fall?

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

so is there no easy solution or rather there are too many self-interests making what could be simple complex?

the way you described the middle-east as a domino structure was pretty visual, and true, sadly. the chess board is still in full effect
peace.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

so is there no easy solution or rather there are too many self-interests making what could be simple complex?

the way you described the middle-east as a domino structure was pretty visual, and true, sadly. the chess board is still in full effect
peace.

Yes. Europe used to be like that. It took two horrible, devastating wars to make things clear to Europeans that it could not continue. Now, Europe hands out moral lessons to other nations in other parts of the world, but we should rather function as an historical, discourgaing example.
I have no idea if the Middle East will be able to work out their conflicts in a better way. For the moment, it looks dark, but who knows?

 

[naga_sadu]

The Sunnis do not want to see an Independent Shiite state, because it would fall directly under the influence of Iran.

The Syrians, the Turcs and the Iranians don't want to see an independant Kurdish state, because that could give the Kurdish minorities in their countries the idea to join them for independence.

The power elite in Iraq doesn't want to see the country desintegrate, because that would deprive them of their power and incomes.

Really, the best solution for all sections of Iraqi society is to simply engage in equal income and resource distribution across all people and territories. The Iraqis have the Sunnis, Shias and Kurds. The Yugoslavs had the Bosnians, Croats and Serbians. And by no means did they have an amicable history. But under "Yugoslavia", that incorporated populations w/ a hostile past and a tense present, the entire nation lived in harmony. And the entire Yugoslav nation was able to achieve one of the highest living standards in Europe for the blue collar worker. That's because resources and income were rationed and distributed equally.

Yet, when the system that oversaw this equal resource dist. was overturned, the entire region spiralled into a civil war. Maybe what we need in Iraq is a socio-economic and political model similar to "old" Yugoslavia. The Western notion of a modern democracy w/ 5 yr. elections, lobbyists, interest groups, etc., won't work in Iraq, I can tell that much!!

 

[zamalito]

Its funny that you guys say that about the hookers and herb. During the cold war my father used to always say that in order to win all the u.s needs to do is airdrop huge amounts capitalist booty like blue jeans and coca cola all over the soviet union. Perhaps some manga rosa and hookers (definitely not mike tyson though, lol) couldn't hurt.

He who fights a war that is avoidable is a criminal, and he who doesn't fight when war is unavoidable is also a criminal.

I actually did a search of "zamalito" and pops' post on this thread mentioning Luiz and I came up.

Though I was extremely opposed to the war from the very beginning because sadaam could've been removed gradually through peaceful means. Iraq already had elections it was merely a matter of cleaning up those elections (something the un is actually quite good at) and making the citizenry feel safe enough to vote for who they actually wanted. That said I actually believe there's a few plans they could've made work had they not spent so much time and energy trying to convince the iraqis to democratically elect people like chalabi who'd protect u.s interests. It was just too obvious that america wanted this for selfish reasons. When the polling wouldn't support chalabi they kept postponing the election and postponing the election and postponing the election... He was the only candidate that had been given armed security but the u.s army. I also wonder if pulling out might actually help iraq stabilize. We couldve worked out a deal with iran where they give up iranian kurdistan and in return get a chunk of oil rish shiite dominant iraq. That way iraqi and iranian kurdistan become united as a separate country. Though turkish kurdistan is still left separate. Iran gets a further incentive to make it work. Iran will now be responsible for security for their newly acquired land and will no longer have to deal with those pesky kurds. Iraq is left as a sunni dominant country controlled by sunis like it was under sadaam so there isn't a huge shift in power. That is assuming the violence is largely sectarian.

I believe that we don't really have an accurate portrayal of who is actually in the insurgency. I'm thinking the insurgency is largely misrepresented and that its more a civil war along the lines of coalition sympathizers and insurgents and there's much more subtlety to it than shiite or sunni. There's a huge cultural revolution happening in the islamic world especially inside of saud arabia which is largely sunni. The saudi middle class makes up a large part of the iraqi insurgency which is funded largely by the saudi upper middle class. Inside of saudi arabia groups are competing for funding to go to iraq and fight in a similar way to non-profit charities in the west. What they're doing is practicing for the day when they go to war with the saudi elite to create a more socialist government with less association with north america and western europe. this is why iran has been increasing realations with the bolivarian revolution because they wish for similar things to happen in saudi arabia. The new islamic uprising is represented by iran so it is associated with the shiites but this isn't fully accurate. It is more the middle class who's tired of the old monarchies who kiss the ass of the west. At some point people of both shiite and sunni were joining the iraqi military and the people we were fighting were either saudi arabian middle class sunnis or afiliated with the new iraqi organized crime. Of course I don't mean to make lite of the the shiite sunni rivalry. It is definitely there and has a long bloody history. its just that things are much much more complicated than an ethnic civil war.

 

[zamalito]

Paz, you're definitely right. I believe that south america is without a doubt going to be the best place to live in the world over the next hundred years. Many of the south american countries have already dealt with what they have to in order to deal with the coming energy crisis and many have taken the necesary steps to separate themselves from the american economy. I disagree about africa and se asia however. Africa has so many problems with ethnic rivalries, aids, malaria, insane water shortages, and a lack of infrastructure. Southeast asia is too heavily linked to the anerican economy though they've been taking steps to attach to china. Without a doubt the basis for the new world economy is china. The treasurer of australia has even given a speach about how australia is separating themselves from the american economy and moving towards china. China is keeping the american economy propped up for the time being with their massive currency holdings. It may even be the reason for the iraq war. The war along with the immense tax cut gives the american govt an excuse to get china to lend astronomical amounts of money buying into the american economy. Interestingly in the first quarter of 2006 the federal reserv stopped publishing the m3 report which details how much currency is printed. So now this figure isn't directly known but calculated from other indicators. Since the chinese currency holdings are also unknown when china does decide to start unloading the american currency holdings it can appear that the source of this new currency is being printed at the federal reserve when in actuality its china bailing out. After china bails it will mean certain death for the american economy and its attachments such as japan, canada, mexico the uk and many more.

 

[PazVerdeRadical]

zamalito, i enjoyed your analysis very much. i mentioned south america, africa and se asia because of the famous g-15. but yes, south america is a lot more stable now than africa and even se asia. although over population problems are not yeta concern in south america like they are in asia, countries like brasil already are very populated. just next to the venezuelan boarders there are brasilian towns that have almost the same total population as the whole of venezuela!
the rain forest is being raped in brasil. and many other ecological disasters are still going on all over south america. the expantion of the modern infrastructure is moving along fast and dis-orderly and without consideraton with our environment. and this along side over population may start to sink s.america back again. the bolivarian revolution still lacks this sort of concrete vision, because you not only need to dis-associate yourself from capitalist neo-liberalism, but you must also dis-associate yourself from its damaging uses of technology and urban develpments.
my two cents.
peace.

 

[zamalito]

Unfortunately, gentlemen, we are dealing with human nature. Not all have been created equal. Some are more intelligent, some are stronger, some are , by nature ,more aggressive. Somewhere, somehow, an individual has a better idea, becomes a little richer. Riches bring power. Wealth and power corrupt. Man is prone to corruption. Somewhere along the line, man invented a club. Some used the club to hunt meat, others used the club to bash his neighbor on the head and steal his meat. Will we ever have a peacefull world? I doubt it. Will we ever have a true democracy? Not bloody likely! Will we ever have a Socialist utopia, with everyone sharing from the collective wealth and resources? Nope, too many greedy bastards in the world. Does this mean that all the crazy, lunitic idealists in the world have given up? Fortunately not. Some of us really stupid ones still have a slim hope that one day, before we wipe ourselves out, we will discover that we are all the same under the skin, and have common hopes, dreams and desires. Our problem is lack of common vision. For people in 3rd world countries, the vision might just be to survive. In modern nations, it might be to hang on to all we have and to gain more. We do not have a clue as to the precarious nature of our existance on this planet and the slim chance of survival of our race.

This statement reminds me of the seed industry. It was founded with such good intentions. Until getting involved with my own seed company over the last month I had absolutely no idea how cutthroat these guys are. I knew some of them were bad but even the companies that I thought were fairly idealistic like reeferman and cannabiogen are just as bad if not worse than the rest. Stories of turning each other in to the police threatening peoples' families and thievery abound. All of them lied cheat and steal to get breeding stock. It would take me hours to even type up the instances where a company has taken someones lifes work with the promise of distributing it in it's pure form cheaply for the sake of the plant only to hack it up and sell f1's and that's a relatively innocent practice in comparison. Hell I was even reading a study yesterday where one of the founders of the whole seed industry and possibly the most knowledgeable cannabis breeder in the world had been given credit in a research paper outlining a genetic screening method to allow law enforcement to link dried herb samples to growers. This same individual provides all of the samples used by dea researchers and also works for a subsidiary of the pharmaceutical company that provided the nazis with all the zyclon b nerve gas used during the holocaust and is also the inventors of heroin which they marjeted as a nonaddictive substitute for morphine.

 

[zamalito]

Very true, paz. I like you have much faith in south america and agree that there's still much need for improvement.

 

[Old Man Time]

I believe we will put 150,000 more troops on the ground before Bush will talk to Iran or Syria.

 

[Mr. Nevermind]

I believe we will put 150,000 more troops on the ground before Bush will talk to Iran or Syria.

Well we dont have another 150,000 troops we can send over. Unless we pull em from Korea and call up every reservist thats not there already. No he wont talk to Iran due to Saudi Arabia. but considering iran is the neighbor they have a stake in this as well, bigger than the US by history and geography alone.

I do think that Bush delayed the plan and address to nation til after xmas because he is going to send more troops over. And doesnt want ot ruin xmas for those families so he will wait till new year to piss off the nation







Nevermind

 

[muddy waters]

Some very interesting discussion here.

Rosy Cheeks, you single out Ahmadinejad for his focus on Israel. I completely agree that the Israeli-Palestinian question is not the only important issue in the Middle East, and I don't think the president of Iran would disagree. But there is also as far as I see no historical equivalent to the state of Israel. At least not in modern history has there been such a translocation of people and resources along with such a prolonged campaign of information management. The Zionist project has killed or dislocated a million people in a span of 6 decades. It's no Holocaust but give 'em another century. While it may be playing to the crowd, or scapegoating, I think Iran has perfectly legitimate reasons to present a strong opposition to the state of Israel.

As for the Iraq Study Group, I agree with what Fareed Zakaria has said on television, that this is an elaborate charade. The White House is not ignorant of polling numbers and throwing together a bunch of octogenarians to produce a document (and more importantly fill the airwaves with discussion about it) is meant to build some credibility among the public, to demonstrate that the White House understands the reality on the ground, thus reassuring many Americans who have a stake personal or political in the war. Frankly I don't think the American people are falling for it, but watch to see if the Preznit's disapproval rating falls a tiny bit in the aftermath of this fabricated moment of reckoning.

 

[muddy waters]

Well, what do coalition troops do to those who take potshots at them? Give them free passes to six flags????

by potshots do you mean projectile flowers and ribbons, the kind you greet liberators with?

that six flags idea though, man naga, you could probably get a gig at the thinktank of your choice.

 

[Rosy Cheeks]

Some very interesting discussion here.

Rosy Cheeks, you single out Ahmadinejad for his focus on Israel. I completely agree that the Israeli-Palestinian question is not the only important issue in the Middle East, and I don't think the president of Iran would disagree. But there is also as far as I see no historical equivalent to the state of Israel.

There are many historical equivalents to the creation of Israel, one worth mentioning is the creation of Liberia in 1847, by Afro American former slaves. Like Israel, the nation was created on a territory where there existed no other state, but where a native population expressed some hostility towards the newcomers, although history has chosen to forget about them.

And to find other "created" nations, we don't have to look any further than to Israel's neighbours. Syria, Jordan, Lebanon and Iraq are all countries created by England and France, with total disrespect to ethnic demography. The European colonial states made nations out of multiethnical areas such as Syria, Lebanon and Iraq, but split up homogenous populations such as the Kurdish nation between different nations. They did that, so that there would be division in these countries, so that that they would be weak and easily controlled. They are just as much "artificial" countries as Israel, but they all happen to be of the same religious conviction, which apparently give them the divine right to call for the destruction of a state with a different religious conviction.

At least not in modern history has there been such a translocation of people and resources along with such a prolonged campaign of information management.

Oh no? You want to bet on it? In 1923, Turkey expelled 1.5 million Greeks living on Turkish soil (where they had been living for thousands of years, long before the Ottoman Empire even existed).

After WW II, 16.5 million Germans were expelled from their native land and properties in East Prussia, Chezhoslovakia, Poland and Russia, simply because they were Germans.

And what about the creation of Pakistan, that caused massive relocations of religious communities and tens and thousands of killings, only to please a few Muslim leaders that could not imagine being part of a nation (India) where Muslims would not have absolute power? Based on a 1951 Census of Displaced Persons, 7.226 million Muslims were forced to move to Pakistan from India while 7.249 million Hindus, Sikhs and Shia Muslims were expelled to India.

It only shows how the media chooses to ignore certain injustices, while they blow others out of proportion.

The Zionist project has killed or dislocated a million people in a span of 6 decades. It's no Holocaust but give 'em another century. While it may be playing to the crowd, or scapegoating, I think Iran has perfectly legitimate reasons to present a strong opposition to the state of Israel.

Funny how you reduce the State of Israel to a Zionist project. Israel has not killed or dislocated a million people. Somewhere between 400 000 and 700 000 Palestinians fled Palestine, when they realized that the war they had themselves started didn't go their way. They did so mainly because Arab nationalist leaders urged them to do so, and promised them a speedy return once Israel had been annihilated. Only, it didn't turn out that way...

The Arab nations expelled aproximately 800 000 Jews living in various Arab countries when Israel declared independence, and deprived them of their land and belongings.
When the war of Independence ended with an Israeli victory and the Arab nations demanded that Israel allowed the Palestinians to return, Israel demanded in return that the Arab nation compensated the 800 000 Jews that they had expulsed, which they refused categorically. Israel therefore allowed only a fraction of the Palestinian refugees to return.

The Palestinians are victims allright, of the Arab nations incapacity to deal pragmatically with the situation. Instead of negotiating with Israel, which is what you normally do when you loose a war, they stubbornly refused to face the situation, and the Palestinians were left stateless as a result.

The Palestinians could have been integrated in the Arab societies, just like the Germans, the Greeks, the Hindus, the Muslims and the Arab Jews were integrated in other countries after being expulsed, but instead they kept them in "refugee camps" (where many of them still live today), so that the world would see what the Jews had done to them.

Iran is not presenting a strong opposition to Israel, Iran is calling for the complete destruction of Israel. There's a difference in nuance.

It's very rude to say to someone that you have no right to exist and should be killed. What if I told you that, and meant it?

 

[muddy waters]

Indeed I did conveniently neglect to mention the powerful Liberia Lobby, didn't I? And I didn't say anything about those Liberians involved in the planning for war with Afghanistan and Iraq, nor the fact that Liberia has nukes and isn't complying with the non-proliferation treaty.

Your other historical equivalents are similarly ridiculous. Look, I'm against anti-Semitism, I'm against all racially motivated prejudice of any kind, and I realize the Jewish people were murdered en masse in Europe and in Russia and maybe all the way back in Babylon but I'd need better sources. But really Rosy no offense but to do Israel apology you really have to come up with the nuttiest contorted logic, because you can't ever defend ethnic cleansing, and the Zionist project as a historical fact is about taking an Arab population and reducing it while importing Jewish people from abroad. It is historical fact that the early leaders of Israel were actively expelling through various means including violence the original inhabitants, yet Israel apologists cling to this myth that the original Palestinians simply left by choice. The obvious non-sequitor you are forced to ignore using this logic is that if they left by choice, they ought to have the right of return, which of course the real, factual Israel denies. There's also the question of the treatment of the Israeli Arabs as de facto second class citizens but that's small potatoes when you consider the occupied territories for what they are, land where people are denied even the most basic right of self-preservation. How much longer should that cruelty continue, Rosy, in your estimation?

Finally Iran is not calling for destruction of Israel any more than Thomas Jefferson was calling for destruction of the United Kingdom. Iran wants the Zionist regime (1948-?) to cede to something maybe a little more just and legitimate. The ridiculous controversy about Ahmadinejad saying "DEATH TO THE JEWS!" or whatever you claim is a proven historical fallacy, not that you should stick to facts when defending your side as they contrive too much with the enemy, I know. What the Iranian President said was wiped off the page of history, according to non-Israeli Lobby-affiliated sources who actually know the Farsi language, and that phrase of course is a rather obvious statement against the current regime, not against the Jewish people.

My final question to you is this: Seeing that a two-state solution isn't going to happen, recognizing the colossal failure to provide even adequate living conditions in the occupied territories, and the Israeli Offense Forces' official stance that targeting populations and bombing infrastructure is noble and dignified and not a war crime, when will you eventually give the Palestinians that didn't get off "your" land when you forced them to the right to live, like you and I enjoy?

 

[naga_sadu]

Iran is not presenting a strong opposition to Israel, Iran is calling for the complete destruction of Israel. There's a difference in nuance.

And the Iranians have shown Ahmedinejad the door during the ongoing nationwide municipal elections. Not a single pro Ahmedinejad candidate won a post in any major city. And besides, Ahmedinejad's calling for Israel's destruction is no excuse for the shoddy and humiliating treatment their government mets out to Palestenian civilians.

Lots of people shout rhetoric all the time. SO WHAT if Ahmedinejad blabbers about wanting to destroy Israel?!?!? Is that goint to actually happen? Not today, not ever. There are lots of insane maniacs who shout for the destruction of India all the time- in fact the Pakistani army innaugrated a missile called "India Killer" some time back in 2000-01- but hey- that Lahore-Chandigarh route still opened up regardless!! And the local government still downsized its presence in Kashmir and did away w/ laws like POTA.

I've dealt w/ guys who've threatened me w/ death in the business field. I've seen guys calling for India's destruction. But fuck, after all those threats, I'm still around and so is India. A few maniacs talking shit is nothing more than a...few maniacs talking shit.

I know that Israel has to deal w/ population elements that have had past bad blood- like Palestenians Vs. Israelis etc. The Israeli official mouthpieces even use this "they just don't want to get along with us" bullshit argument when justifying their fucked up tactics on the ground.

But what I don't get about Israel is...why couldn't they emulate former Yugoslavia (before the Balkans embraced capitalism, that is)? The Bosnians owed their alliance to the Ottomans and the Orthodox Christian Serbians were hardcore opposed to them. Even in WWII, the Nazis created a special branch of Waffen SS divisions encompassing only Bosnian Muslims.

Yet, after the Nazis were dealt with, the Yugoslav partisans accepted the Bosnian Muslims into their new nation. And by the late 50s and 60s, well thru the 70s, the Bosnian Muslims integrated well into Yugoslav culture, and the Yugoslav government also ensured that the Bosnians and Croats get an equal amount of opportunities and resources as the Serbs. THey didn't start repressing the Bosnians or ship them into refugee camps to Albania and neither did the Yugoslav government erect fences in Bosnian land. The official policy considered the Bosnians a vital part of the Yugoslav system and acted accordingly.

Now...Yugoslavia had its flaws, but they did a damn fine job integrating groups w/ a hostile history. Something the ISraeli shotcallers need to do, instead of this stupid ass "they started it, we're just defending ourselves" bullshit. THose fucking idiots in the IDF's decision making wings seem to think that nobody else in the world has lived in a land dealing w/ strife and Israel is the only example of a country that is. HORSE SHIT! I thought that the Indian official treatment in Kashmir was below par, but Israel's official treatment of its occupied territories are way...WAY worse.

Why is it that ethnic strife only runs rampant in corporate capitalist societies? Just as mosquitoes cause malaria, it looks as if corporate capitalism w/ abundant opportunism is what causes ethnic strife...because for some odd reason, societies that don't endorse corporate capitalism don't tend to have inter national problems especially to the level of fucking strifes...

And what about the creation of Pakistan, that caused massive relocations of religious communities and tens and thousands of killings, only to please a few Muslim leaders that could not imagine being part of a nation (India) where Muslims would not have absolute power?

I thought we covered this in another thread.

The creation of Pakistan was to enable Mohammed Ali Jinna to establish a power base with him as a supreme leader. He didn't want to mingle in Indian politics, because the people as well as populist leaders like Rajinder Prasad, Nehru etc., overwhelmingly favoured Socialism whereas JInna's talents in running a Socialist economy was 0. He was more of a capitalist and had a vast network of Western business people across N. America and Europe. His support base during his days in the pre-independence era Indian congress were the mercantile class.

The concept of Muslims not being able to live w/ Hindus or vice versa was only the official gloss given to justify partition, just as the official gloss on the war on drugs is to keep people and children safe from us bad and evil fiends...ah, FUCKING capitalist & opportunist fucknuts...