Guest views are now limited to 12 pages. If you get an "Error" message, just sign in! If you need to create an account, click here.

Jump to content
  • CRYPTO REWARDS!

    Full endorsement on this opportunity - but it's limited, so get in while you can!

Cheney Biden Plan for Exactly Where We Currently Stand in Iraq


Recommended Posts

 

"The real battle for Americans today is a battle to reassert our independence from an overbearing and unsustainable state. Today, we can all celebrate that there are fundamental cracks in the federal state's veneer, and we can be grateful for the options we still have in our own lives to live free, to practice charity and faith, creativity and productivity and to rediscover our own power as individuals and communities." -- Karen Kwiatkowski - retired U.S. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel

 

It continues to amaze some of the old retired architects of today's global chaos.... amazes them, that so many of the American people continue to believe there is an actual difference between the political parties in terms of agenda. This is a likely attribute of a various aspects; among them tradition, belief and culture mixed with disinformation, misinformation, and straight up agenda driven manipulation. And  at the end of the day it remains, that representatives of the two political parties, once elected and serving, are indistinguishably two sides of the same coin. That many Americans don't readily recognize this is surprising with disappointment to some, and is actually frightening to most of the old guard now watching their work spin out of control.

 

I just spent a very intense couple of months with one of the major architects who put into motion much of what is playing out in Iraq these days. “Spinning out” in terms of control however might be a better descriptor. In any event, one night I relayed some of the tone and timber of the political conversations/debates that occur on DV; actually downplaying the pejorative / name calling, banal aspects of some of these “discussions” I'd been around him long enough by that time to know he'd see this as pointless distraction relative to the “real” issues. What surprised me however was how totally blown away he was that “people even engaged in political party debates as being in any way meaningful”. I reminded him that being so immersed in the actual details of the world chaos around us, and having been one of the initiators of its origins, he likely didn't have an accurate pulse as to how much of the world saw things. Not everyone got to, or gets to sit in the back rooms on the world stage. He nonetheless laughed in disbelief, said things I won't repeat, and I'm pretty sure, in the end, didn't ever really grasp how “real” political party loyalty and the depth of seemingly growing division is, in the hearts of many folks. And of course the conversation turned to the “real” threat to the American way of life and went long into the evening.....

 

Talking to one of the other guys later in the wee hours, it occurred to me that he didn't “get it” as it's so removed, so foreign, so inconsequential in it's impact to what is really going on,.... that it would be like focusing on loyalty to either Boeing versus Raytheon casting deep divisions between them in answering whether or not we should go back into Iraq. The relationship is so tangential.

 

Where are truly caught up in  a non partisan evolution. And digressing for a moment, later this week, we'll hear from 10 or 11 Military Generals in an analytical almost academic discussion about the Iraq and Afghan war (among others of this past 5 decades). Fortunately they are able to stay non partisan in objective rather frank discussion referring to the respective administrations and its individuals, as individuals and not one political party versus the other. Perhaps these military giants, these incredible men of integrity and courage will leave us with yet one more contribution in mentoring people as to how to focus on the issue and not the distractions.... Its fascinating, truly compelling to watch very objective analysis as McChrystal says the war was a mistake and all but says it was irrational in hindsight, McCaffrey calls it a disaster and straight up calls Rumsfeld out, and Petraeus wonders out loud why he got himself into the whole thing....

 

But I digressed and in any event,

What we are seeing in the Middle East right here and right now, is the continued evolution of a plan that was clearly designed and even announced all over the place, years ago. It is not some off the wall sudden, emergent, “where the hell did this come from”, surprise uprising. And the gurus who peer into crystal balls in some lame attempt to suggest they have special inside info, or an accurate view of what is going on, as if it were some current happening, are going to continue to sound like the ignorant dill weeds they are in their analysis. (quite apart from those among us who venture out in trying to analyze the world as they see it or figure out what's going on in member discussions, which is most appreciated).

 

It also underscores some of Maliki's comments to Kerry in his speech basically saying the US doesn't get to call the shots for his country and Iraq will determine it's destiny, not the US. Perhaps he didn't get the memo as to who is really the architect of this entire event. 

 

This is long,...... as usual. Hopefully if you're interested, you will have time to read it off and on and eventually get to the end and maybe a bigger or perhaps different picture. And yeah there is some things we can do. And that is another post at a later time.

 

BTW, after this point, all information below is quoted with no additional commentary or editing. It comes from mainstream media in most cases, with one email blog entry; annotated as such. The articles are random with no special reason for choosing other than the dates of these discussions is years ahead of exactly what we now see playing out and some of the reasons behind it. There are a few deeply analytical discussions I omitted but will bring in if folks want to read them. Didn't want to lose everyone right out of the gate :)

 

 

New York Times
November 25, 2003
The Three-State Solution
By LESLIE H. GELB

Keep in mind this was written in 2003

 

For decades, the United States has worshiped at the altar of a unified yet unnatural Iraqi state. Allowing all three communities within that false state to emerge at least as self-governing regions would be both difficult and dangerous.

 

Washington would have to be very hard-headed, and hard-hearted, to engineer this breakup. But such a course is manageable, even necessary, because it would allow us to find Iraq's future in its denied but natural past.The third part of the strategy would revolve around regional diplomacy. All the parties will suspect the worst of one another -- not without reason. They will all need assurances about security. And if the three self-governing regions were to be given statehood, it should be done only with the consent of their neighbors.

 

The Sunnis might surprise and behave well, thus making possible a single and loose confederation. Or maybe they would all have to live with simple autonomy, much as Taiwan does with respect to China.The Sunnis could also ignite insurgencies in the Kurdish and Shiite regions. To counter this, the United States would already have redeployed most of its troops north and south of the Sunni Triangle, where they could help arm and train the Kurds and Shiites, if asked.For example, they might punish the substantial minorities left in the center, particularly the large Kurdish and Shiite populations in Baghdad. These minorities must have the time and the wherewithal to organize and make their deals, or go either north or south.

 

This would be a messy and dangerous enterprise, but the United States would and should pay for the population movements and protect the process with force.Second and at the same time, draw down American troops in the Sunni Triangle and ask the United Nations to oversee the transition to self-government there. This might take six to nine months; without power and money, the Sunnis may cause trouble.

 

The first step would be to make the north and south into self-governing regions, with boundaries drawn as closely as possible along ethnic lines. Give the Kurds and Shiites the bulk of the billions of dollars voted by Congress for reconstruction. In return, require democratic elections within each region, and protections for women, minorities and the news media.

 

A strategy of breaking up Iraq and moving toward a three-state solution would build on these realities. The general idea is to strengthen the Kurds and Shiites and weaken the Sunnis, then wait and see whether to stop at autonomy or encourage statehood.The Shiites might like a united Iraq if they controlled it -- which they could if those elections Mr. Bush keeps promising ever occur. But the Kurds and Sunnis are unlikely to accept Shiite control, no matter how democratically achieved. The Kurds have the least interest in any strong central authority, which has never been good for them.Today, the Sunnis have a far greater stake in a united Iraq than either the Kurds or the Shiites. Central Iraq is largely without oil, and without oil revenues, the Sunnis would soon become poor cousins.

 

The Ottomans ruled all the peoples of this land as they were: separately. In 1921, Winston Churchill cobbled the three parts together for oil's sake under a monarch backed by British armed forces. The Baathist Party took over in the 1960's, with Saddam Hussein consolidating its control in 1979, maintaining unity through terror and with occasional American help.The ancestors of today's Shiites, Sunnis and Kurds have been in Mesopotamia since before modern history. The Shiites there, unlike Shiites elsewhere in the Arab world, are a majority. The Sunnis of the region gravitate toward pan-Arabism. The non-Arab Kurds speak their own language and have always fed their own nationalism.

 

The lesson is obvious: overwhelming force was the best chance for keeping Yugoslavia whole, and even that failed in the end. Meantime, the costs of preventing the natural states from emerging had been terrible.Europeans and Americans protested but -- stunningly and unforgivably -- did little at first to prevent the violence. Eventually they gave the Bosnian Muslims and Croats the means to fight back, and the Serbs accepted separation. Later, when Albanians in the Serb province of Kosovo rebelled against their cruel masters, the United States and Europe had to intervene again. The result there will be either autonomy or statehood for Kosovo.When Tito died in 1980, several parts of Yugoslavia quickly declared their independence. The Serbs, with superior armed forces and the arrogance of traditional rulers, struck brutally against Bosnian Muslims and Croats.There is a hopeful precedent for a three-state strategy: Yugoslavia after World War II.

 

In 1946, Marshal Tito pulled together highly disparate ethnic groups into a united Yugoslavia. A Croat himself, he ruled the country from Belgrade among the majority and historically dominant Serbs. Through clever politics and personality, Tito kept the peace peacefully.But times have changed.

 

The Kurds have largely been autonomous for years, and Ankara has lived with that. So long as the Kurds don't move precipitously toward statehood or incite insurgencies in Turkey or Iran, these neighbors will accept their autonomy. It is true that a Shiite self-governing regioncould become a theocratic state or fall into an Iranian embrace. But for now, neither possibility seems likely.

 

This three-state solution has been unthinkable in Washington for decades. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, a united Iraq was thought necessary to counter an anti-American Iran. Since the gulf war in 1991, a whole Iraq was deemed essential to preventing neighbors like Turkey, Syria and Iran from picking at the pieces and igniting wider wars.

 

Almost immediately, this would allow America to put most of its money and troops where they would do the most good quickly -- with the Kurds and Shiites. The United States could extricate most of its forces from the so-called Sunni Triangle, north and west of Baghdad, largely freeing American forces from fighting a costly war they might not win. American officials could then wait for the troublesome and domineering Sunnis, without oil or oil revenues, to moderate their ambitions or suffer the consequences.The only viable strategy, then, may be to correct the historical defect and move in stages toward a three-state solution: Kurds in the north, Sunnis in the center and Shiites in the south.

 

And then there is the plea, mostly from outside the United States government, to internationalize the occupation of Iraq. The moment for multi-lateralism, however, may already have passed. Even the United Nations shudders at such a nightmarish responsibility.President Bush wants to hold Iraq together by conducting democratic elections countrywide. But by his daily reassurances to the contrary, he only fans devastating rumors of an American pullout. Meanwhile, influential senators have called for more and better American troops to defeat the insurgency. Yet neither the White House nor Congress is likely to approve sending more troops.President Bush's new strategy of transferring power quickly to Iraqis, and his critics' alternatives, share a fundamental flaw: all commit the United States to a unified Iraq, artificially and fatefully made whole from three distinct ethnic and sectarian communities. That has been possible in the past only by the application of overwhelming and brutal force.

 

NEXT ARTICLE:

 

31 January 2007

Biden Cheney Plan

 

Senator Biden's failed Presidential campaign in 2007 was primarily focused on dismembering Iraq as a supposed solution to ethnic conflict between different groups that allegedly was not fueled by the US occupation. This partition would make it much easier for the US to control the oil fields -- and a long term goal is to similarly divide Iran and Saudi Arabia, creating a new country out of eastern Saudi Arabia, southern Iraq and western Iran that would have nearly all of the oil of those three countries. If this new "Arab Shia state" were combined with US allies Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar, this would give the US control over half of the world's remaining oil reserves. This is not a "failure" of US policy in Iraq, merely an extremely cynical Machiavellian strategy. However, this goal probably would require a President with a better image than George W. Bush to conclude.

The Biden Resolution for Iraqi Partition

Democratic Party chair Howard Dean was on the Charlie Rose show (PBS) a week before the 2006 mid-term election, and suggested that partition could be a solution for the "Iraqi civil war."

It seems that the empire is pursuing a "good cop, bad cop" strategy regarding the plunder of Iraq - the Bush / Cheney neo-cons create chaos and devastation, and the Democrats (and perhaps the old guard Republicans represented by James Baker, whose "recommendations" for Iraq will be unveiled after the election) will legitimize partition as part of an alleged new direction for the US war on Iraq. The fact that this fragmentation would be yet another drawing of boundaries by non-Arabs (the lines on the existing maps were devised by the British and French in 1920) that conveniently would make controlling the oil more practical for the US is unlikely to be mentioned in the mass media.

newiraq.gif

a crude map showing how breaking up Iraq into three new countries would divide control of the oil - if coupled with partition of Iran and Saudi Arabia, as some influential war mongers have proposed, it would centralize control of the world's largest oil fields - artist unknown

 

NEXT ARTICLE:

 

January 31, 2007
Biden's Presidential campaign promotes partition

Senator Biden (D-Delaware) announced he is joining the crowded field of candidates for Emperor. While few are likely to be interested in his campaign, one part of his platform is a dangerous meme likely to spread and become the "alternative" view of what to do about Iraq. Biden's advocacy for breaking Iraq into three entities is probably the Bush regime's goal from the start of the conflict, since smaller enclaves would make the oil easier to control. See the neo-con's new Middle East map for details.

Nearly everyone in the Middle East is aware that the existing national borders were delineated by Europeans after World War I, not by Arabs. These boundaries keep most of the oil wealth separated from most of the Arabs -- and the neo-liberal / neo-conservative campaign to create new lines on the map (with the excuse of escalating conflict in Iraq) would amplify this theft in the minds of many, if not most of the people in the Middle East. This development would confirm predictions that "civil war" would be stoked through deliberate strategies (not incompetence) in order to achieve this long term goal. In short, the neo-con battle plan is to dominate the oil rich regions through endless war -- but this risky strategy is likely to lead to nuclear war and definitely will waste the resources needed to mitigate Climate Change and Peak Oil.

It is extremely unlikely that Biden's campaign will result in much public support but it risks elevating the "partition" concept to a serious national discussion. This false solution would make the situation much worse, but that tragedy would be seen as "mission accomplished" in some elite circles.

 

August 25, 2008
A Debate on Sen. Joe Biden’s Foreign Policy Record Between Steve Clemons and Stephen Zunes

STEPHEN ZUNES: Classic neocolonial divide and rule.
The big division in Iraq
is not between Sunni and Shia, but
between sectarians and nationalists,
and clearly Biden is siding with the more sectarian elements. The Iraqi constitution allows for some limited autonomy based on geography, on provinces, whereas Biden’s plan is based on ethnicity and religion, which is a real formula for disaster, because they don’t neatly follow geographical lines, all this intermingling, and despite what Biden said, the leading Sunni, Shia and secular parties have all denounced his plan, and even the US State Department said that Biden’s plan went way too far and was dangerous.

NEXT ARTICLE

 

November 12, 2008 4:00 PM ET
 

Peter Galbraith, a former U.S. ambassador to Croatia, says that Iraq should split into three countries, one for each of the ethnic groups in the region: Sunni, Shiite and Kurd.

The senior diplomatic fellow with the Center for Arms Control and Nonproliferation notes that the country has already broken up in partitions along these lines and the U.S. should not be in the business of putting it back together.

Galbraith says the ethnic factions have started taking on distinct roles in Iraq. "We have, in the north Kurdistan, which is, in all regards, an independent country, with its own army and its own government. And now between the Shiites and the Sunnis there are two separate armies — there's a Shiite army — it's the Iraqi army, but it's dominated by the Shiites — and in the Sunni areas there's now the Awakening — a 100,000-man strong militia. And it is because of the Awakening, and not so much the surge of U.S. troops, that there's been this decline in attacks by al-Qaida."

Galbraith says that the Sunni Awakening still remains very hostile to the Iraqi government, and the government sees the Awakening as a bigger threat than al-Qaida.

The incoming Obama administration will bring Vice President-elect Joe Biden into the fray, which Galbraith calls "very encouraging."

Biden "has been the prime proponent of a decentralized Iraq, and although in the campaign Sen. McCain described [biden's] plan as a 'cockamamie' idea," Galbraith says, "it is in fact what the Bush administration has done."

In 2007, the Bush administration financed a Sunni army — the Awakening — and Galbraith says this is responsible for the success so far in Iraq. Biden would take this to the next step and encourage the Sunnis to form their own region, which would control that army, just as the Kurdistan region controls the Peshmerga, or the Kurdistan army, Galbraith says.

A decentralized, loosely federalized partitioned Iraq might eventually be capable of defending its own interests against its larger neighbors of Iran and Turkey, but right now, Galbraith says, that's not happening.

"Iraq is not, today, defending its interests," he says. "The Iranians wield enormous influence because the United States actually paved the way for Iran's allies to become the government of Iraq."

"With regard to the Kurds, actually there's been a change in attitude on the part of Turkey," Galbraith says. "There was a time when they thought the idea of an independent Kurdistan was an almost existential threat to Turkey. But increasingly, Turks recognize, first, that this is an accomplished fact — it's already happened; and second, that there are opportunities — after all, they share in common that they're secular, they're pro-Western, and, like the Turks, they aspire to be democratic and they're not Arabs."

Galbraith says there are two things the U.S. can do to enhance stability in Iraq as it leaves.

"First, try and solve the territorial dispute over Kirkuk and other disputed areas between the Kurds and the Arabs. Secondly, to work out a modus vivendi between the Iraqi government and the Shiite-led army and the Sunni Awakening as to who will control what territory," he says.

"If we can minimize the kinds of things that Sunnis and Shiites are going to fight over, it may be, over time, that they will find it in their interests to have much greater cooperation and that voluntarily they'll build a stronger Iraqi state," Galbraith says. "I think it's unlikely the Kurds would ever join that, but I think it's quite possible between the Sunnis and Shiites."

 

Next Article:

The 2008 Election

October 31st, 2008

(Senior Officer / Military Analysts in a private blog, analysis )

Very briefly, I’d like to write a couple of things about the next farce, nonsense pageant that’s about to go down.

The way I see it is as follows:

If Obama and Biden are installed, it means that the U.S. will continue to be Sovietized for integration into the ascendant global prison system. Biden is a high priest in the ranks of global elite enablers. The glow of the All Seeing Eye shines brightly on this ticket.

Then there’s the generalized zombie cult crack-up factor that surrounds this Obama thing. I’d suggest investing in smelling salts and organizations that train cult deprogrammers for the aftermath of this one.

If McCain and Palin are installed, it means that the elite would rather overtly collapse the U.S. before proceeding with the Sovietization plan later on. McCain is senile and Palin is as batshit crazy and corrupt as a person can be.

Two paths, two different types of bad.

If I had to guess, I would say that it will be Obama/Biden.

Most of you know that I view the U.S. President as relatively insignificant unit of analysis when it comes to trying to understand events. I also realize that the patterns of ritual abuse that these elections represent have f@ked up a lot of people for good. This is the stuff of religion, and worse. Feel free to use this post as an open thread to unburden yourself on this situation, if you wish. Just don’t expect me to respond to any of it. I’ve said more about this than I wanted to already, and now I have that can’t-quite-vomit feeling in my gut.

End of articles....
 

I refrained from commenting in the various articles, though in many cases found it interesting how closely they reflected actual records of discussions in various government committees (foreign policy senate, etc)... Apart from that, whatever else is going on or not going on in the internal infra structure of Iraq, whatever their government is or isn't doing, if they are seated or standing, voting or considering ….on some level, sure that all matters, however......in the back ground there is a clear and now present intent of direction as to the infra structure of Iraq and how it will ultimately exist (I'm going to vote for over-arching one combined federalist over 3 separations at the end of the day) …

There is unfinished business that present day architects have been itching like rabid dogs to scratch... and looking for any excuse possible to go back in and effect this direction. We've apparently divorced ourselves from the paranoia of needing Iraq to remain whole in off-setting the perceived danger of Iran. That ship has sailed into so many ports and morphed many times since this initial approach a decade plus ago. ….

Whatever else is going on, stability has way too many chefs stirring the soup in terms of defining what stability means and Iraq is as much the soup as it is the chef. We've been over there a couple of months trying to figure out what is going on, perhaps in hopes of not exacerbating things as has been so typical of most attempts to orchestrate things in the past decades. That might be me being optimistic though. And in any event, what that does or does not have to do with an RV is anyone's guess, speculation and analysis. And whatever the case may be in that regard, I would suggest that resolution of the present conflict might not be a mere resolution of the conflict and instead the conflict is a precursor to the ultimate resolution that's been drafted years ago and is now put into play......

 

PS the  11  Generals giving their analysis and discussion will be broadcast (American Generals) on Nat Geo this Sunday..... US only in the initial showing... .

 

PPS Re: the title of this post, It occurs to me I neglected to post the article that most clearly draws the line between them... but I think there is enough in the above to be able to connect those dots without having to actually draw the whole picture in depth detail (but can go find it if anyone wants to read it) .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 8
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Rayzur! Good to see intelligent posts. I, like Umbert, was going to post asking about you. Yep! People still ignorantly, honestly feel there is a difference between the parties. All things we see now were planned in advanced. Very few things happen by chance. Thank  you. Thank you! Good to see another jew back in the posts. Dunno, just saying........Want to work in this area? How are you in Integrative/Functional Medicine??? Hahahahaha.Cheers

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome Back Rayzur!!!

 

You sure Know How To "Hit The Ground Running"... Excellent Post.

 

Sure hope folks will turn off the MSM and start seeing that we US citizens are all in the same boat...

and that the politicians (Dem & Repub) are all together in their boat... exporting away our country.

 

I was a little... no... a lot... surprised to see that Baghdad would be a part of Kurdistan.

Guess it makes sense though... seeing how cozy the US has become with the Kurds.

  • Upvote 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Correction:

 

Looking at the map again I see that Baghdad would be a part of Iraq (New) and thus a part of the territories gained by the "war" with ISIS... It would include Syria too. Sure changes the picture doesn't it?

THAT is not surprising at all.

Edited by Maggie123
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey thanks guys for the welcome back and concern. It was a good 6 weeks more than I'd expected to be gone. Where did the summer go?

 

To be sure, we all know by now that things aren't at all as they seem. Its not something I think. Its something I experientially know. At the same time, I don't think there's some grand over seeing group of people running the world as a whole. To be sure there are wealthy people of wealthy families who are the puppet masters behind many events. But I just don't see them as a combined force in some historical group that through time has and continues to execute some master plan (which is not to say that wealthy people have not taken advantage of the opportunities given them throughout history and benefited greatly by those structures.). I'll have to think of a better way to say that.

 

In any event people have got to let go of this Republican Vs Democrat think if we're going to actually get at something meaningful..... I guess we all have to register as something in order to vote, but at least stop thinking one is good and the other is responsible for all evils. That's just stupid when you get down to it. As a starting point in this aspect, get conscious, be responsible and look at how the individual votes... the individual.... Does he or she vote for legislation that supports your beliefs.... Many of you might be surprised that a person of the other party actually voted consistent with your beliefs while your party voted to sink the ship..... 

 

As for what supports the American way of life and liberty... its not Rep V Dem... its Corporatocracy versus Democracy...and before someone gets stuck in stupid and replies accordingly... I am not against corporations nor am I against individual profit...

 

But corporations legally recognized as individuals.... really???. ... Why? What is the democracy principle that supports this legal recognition? .. Apart from the ability to contribute to campaigns (corporations can't, individuals can.... did ya'll know that your vote for campaign reform was wiped off the face of the earth with this legal recognition that swept in afterward?)  and in contributing to campaigns, effect the performance of the voted in candidate in terms of favorability toward their interests.... Course of recent, the record clearly shows that corporations contribute to BOTH candidates, ensuring such favor no matter who wins....... Its there in records people... look it up...

 

And apart from that, ever try holding a corporation accountable... as a corporation? Yeah. In fact not only can you not hold a corporation accountable (without significant litigation)... have you noticed how this lack of accountability is bleeding down into the line level employees? "Sorry can't help you with this problem, that's the way it is, I don't know who can help you resolve this, because that's the way it is.... but good luck with whatever you do to fix it...... NEXT!)

 

It goes on and on and on in terms of its impact in our lives and the potential to forever reshape the fabric of this country... Its not about being against the corporation... its about demanding the corporation be recognized as a corporation ... nothing more, nothing less... and our current way of life is at risk if we continue to ignore the real threat to the governance of this country's infra structure.... A legitimized pathway to legally control the destiny of a country by way of he who has the most money controls that country.... is absurd..... when you consider that country  is America...

 

 

PS there is currently a bill going through that sets things straight, stating that corporations can not be recognized as individuals. I don't pay attention to party driven politics, and the back room discussion is that is will likely die in the Senate... Don't know which party is in charge of the Senate, but I would watch my individual Senator and how they vote on this.... and thereafter use my vote to send em home if they get it wrong... I'll try to get more info on the bill and post at some point (though there are so many great posters in here, someone will likely beat me to it :) :) There's a lot still going on here on my plate :)

 

Also that map is old... about a decade old... There is a new map floating out there... I think it might be much the same, not sure I didn't look at it closely as  the point of the post was that it was predetermined years ago, so I just used the map attached to the article...

In any event, I'll also try to dig that out later as well... and it may be the same... but I'll post it when I find it  .

  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.