Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

There are many that are speculating that the orange tide (can't remember the exact name) will spill over to Russia next.

tsunami question
 

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Maybe gravity will make it flow down to Iran or Iraq. Far-fetched, but equally plausible.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Give Iraq 13 or so years and then make the comparison.

tsunami question
 

That's good news. I wonder why there was no damage there. Less of a wave? Better building codes? Odd, that.

tsunami question
 

http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/templates.../animation.gif

don't know where it is exactly, and don't know if this is accurate, and don't know if blue or red is more severe but here's an animation.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

If it wasn't plausible, why would Putin be concerned?

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Uh, I think Putin was more concerned about having dominance over Ukraine because it furthered notions of Russian empire than being objectively worried about opposition candidates arising in Moscow.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Plus, the Ukraine (sorry, can't get used to dropping the "the" -- same with the Sudan) has nukes, so the Man Whose Soul Our President Has Seen very much wants a friendly face in Kiev.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

That's a very small part of it. The real story is oil (surprise, surprise), but I also think the Russian government fears the spread of real democracy.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Que?

eta: Are you alluding to the fact that Ukraine is the 48th largest oil producing nation, behind Peru and ahead of Germany?

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Possibly. Or, possibly he means that Ukraine is dependent on oil and other resources from Russia, and that Russia has serious geopolitical problems with any thought of Ukraine (for centuries being beholden to Russia) leaving the Russian empire and becoming Western-oriented.

link

• To Ukraine, its ties with the U.S. are its last and best guarantee of security and sovereignty. For centuries, Ukraine has been integral to Russia's empires, both Soviet and Czarist. To many, if not most, Russians, the notion of an independent Ukraine remains a rather alien concept at best. Thus, this country's short history of independence has been shadowed by fears that Russia would eventually reassert control. And, in fact, while official Russian attitudes toward Ukraine have mellowed from the days when Russian officials dismissed Ukraine's independence as "transitional," Moscow retains its goal of greater integration among all the former Soviet states and looks askance at its neighbors' development of closer ties with the United States and the West, which Russia increasingly sees as threatening. In Ukraine's case, this is particularly significant. Of all of the post-Soviet states, it has been most active in courting U.S. friendship.
  
  It is in part to avoid angering Russia that the United States (and NATO and its other members) has steered clear of granting Ukraine any firm security commitments. Instead, the suggestion of alignment was proffered through NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) program and continuing bilateral military-to-military ties. As a result, Ukraine has little to rely on other than the hope that NATO and/or the United States will protect it if Russia makes a hostile move. As long as Moscow maintains its official policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty, of course, this is not a problem. But a hardening of Russia's stance towards Ukraine could set off a dangerous chain reaction. A threatened Ukraine would have little choice but to ask for Western assistance. This would not only anger Russia, exacerbating the situation, but would force an unwelcome choice for Brussels and Washington. For the United States and NATO, giving Ukraine the support it desires would invite conflict with Russia. But failing to do so would not only mean the end of Ukraine's independence, but would also send a frightening message to all of their other "Partners" and friends about the credibility of that friendship.
  
  Certainly the best outcome for all concerned is to prevent such an eventuality by taking steps to ensure that Ukraine's sovereignty is guaranteed by more than a vague hope of Western support. But Russia's ability to pressure Ukraine effectively is increasing, for in recent months Russia has begun to shift the power balance between the two states in the single most important sector of their interaction: energy imports and exports.
  
  Ukraine, like most other post-Soviet states, remains highly dependent on Russia for its energy. This includes the vast majority of its natural gas, of which Ukraine is one of the world's largest consumers, and its oil. Furthermore, Ukraine's nuclear sector is dependent on Russia both for provision of fuel rods for its nuclear power plants and for reprocessing of waste.
  
  Russia has repeatedly used the energy advantage to pressure its neighbors toward greater alignment. But despite its dependence on Russian energy and its huge debt to Moscow (estimated at between $740 million and $2.8 billion), Ukraine, unlike other post-Soviet states, has been able to resist Russia's efforts to transform energy dependence into policy influence. Despite Russia's steps to raise tariffs, force Ukraine to swap debt for equity, and occasionally cut off fuel entirely, Kyiv's policy has over time become more, not less, Western in orientation.

But really, this is all about the spread of democracy to Moscow.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

This is what I meant. I also thought I read that Ukraine was key to Russia's oil distribution (not just consumption), but I may have that wrong.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

If Ukraine is dependant on Russian oil, why does it make a difference whom they elect?

tsunami question
 

That's why they're also called tidal waves. Imagine a tide about 200-1000 feet thick, rising forty feet. It's not like a wave crashes over everything - it's like the tide suddenly rises that much. Far, far worse, because of the volumetric increase.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

As I understand it, it is not so much U being dependent on Russian oil, as Russia's oil exports being dependent on U purchases. Sort of a captive purchaser situation.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

That's a cruel denigration of the word "vote".

Surprisingly, I do get your point. I think we're just doing the ships passing thing because of a disconnect in viewpoints.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I see the Iraqi society as being not that different than ours. There are two (or maybe three, depending on how you count) religions there. Each religion has some small share of radical nutjobs, who will freely give others' lives for their gawd. But, the mass of people are in the middle, basically believing, but certainly not about to crash planes into buildings or pull tripwires on vests just because of some raisins. (sp?). They yearn for some explanations of the unknowables, and they want a structure that tells them that, by sticking to a defined morality, they're not going to handicap themselves, because others will stick to it, too, but that's really all they're looking to their religion for, not unlike most people here.

They've had - what? - generations of strife. They've had a taste of prosperity, and also a taste of hell, through the auspices of SH. Mussolini made the trains run on time, with some obvious drawbacks. So, too, did SH. So, they know what a functioning infrasrtucture can bring them, quality-of-life-wise, and they want to take part in a society that offers them that, along with some control and freedom. They want to feed their families, send their kids to school, and be a part of the world. They want a Coke.

So, I think that the bulk of the society - Kurd, Shia, and Sunni - will find it more important to work to form a workable group that can build a healthy society, and be prosperous, and join the rest of us, than to fight for their tribal or sectarian advantage.

Obviously, if the Shia majority elects a government that governs to the clear advantage of Shia society, this won't work. But, I'm thinking that what will prevail will be a religion-neutral group, one that governs for Iraqis, and not some segment of Iraqis. If that happens - even if the Sunni's lose, but then see that the government treats them fairly, shia or sunni or whatever - then and only then can they form an honest-to-gosh cohesive civil society.

I think the chances of this happening are better than even. I also think this would be the greatest leap forward the entire middle east could possibly take at this point - leading to pressure all over the region for a similar result, starting with Iran, and maybe Syria.

If you understand my optimism for this, and if you understand that I think that right now - today - is the optimal time for this attempt - then you will understand why I think it so vital for the entire world that we make the attempt that we're making now, painful or not, and why I think that a Kerry win would have been so bad for the entire world.

Might even help you understand why I like Rummy.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

2. And say the sunnis boycott, they will learn that next election they should show up. The US born agains boycotted in 2000, then realized they should show up in 2004. hell, our first election someone told GW he should just cancel and declare himself King.

Ty. The tanks aren't bogged down outside Baghdad. Give it some time.

tsunami question
 

I heard this too (the part about your being safer if you're in the water). Someone I know was in Thailand on vacation, and was on a boat. She and her husband survived by hanging onto the boat and riding it out.

Holy crap.

tsunami question
 

do you have a link to a newspaper story about them?

tsunami question
 

Alas, no. They survived, you see.

tsunami question
 

Come now, don't leave out the important details. Are they American?

Too much choice
 

OK. We agree. I never said it was a huge deal, if you look at my posts, I just said it showed a real "tin ear." I take it you agree.

I'd agree with much of your first sentence. However, the down-side is that when a guy like that is wrong, he can be _really_, _really_ wrong, and unable to see the other side. I think he'd have made a better President than SecDef. Perhaps better at "the vision thing" than at the implementation (or prone, perhaps, to trust the wrong people).

I'm actually finally reading through "Bush at War" now (its been a busy year), and Rumsfeld comes across very well so far. Very smart and thoughtful guy.

His excellent discussion of his effort to revisit all U.S. war plans and reevaluate and update them all, beginning with the underlying assumptions, makes me wonder how his shop could have so badly fucked up the post-war planning and implementation in Iraq. Its hard to keep your place on the Honor Roll when you get a D on the exam.

S_A_M

This is Unbelievable
 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/4130599.stm

[Sri Lanka rejects Israel's help]

Too much choice
 

Did you consider the part where Rummy claimed that the shortage of armored vehicles was due to "the laws of physics," because factories were building them as fast as they could, to be honest?

Even though it was proven false the very next day?

Too much choice
 

God, what a puff piece. Woodward should be embarrassed (if he's still capable).

Too much choice
 

What? They're being sucked into black holes?

This is Unbelievable
 

I was thinking more along the lines of sad and pathetic as opposed to unbelievable.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

This of course all hinges on your assumption that the people who are disenfranchised, be it out of fear of violent reprisal or stupidity in listening to the mullahs crying boycott, will channel their feeling of second class citizenship into a renewed effort at the ballot box. The fact that they will be stuck with fewer seats to vote for because of the initial governmental structure being created makes this ballot box effort even less likely in my book, which is why I wish a different decision had been made.

How is anyone who lives/lived in Fallujah being registered at this point? Or Samarra? It may be the fault of the few wackos, but it's a whole group of people who may be getting left out of the future of Iraq. I don't see why this is any less unfortunate than the way the Sunnis kept the Shiites down (and yes I am speaking metaphorically and don't expect the rape rooms to reopen). To me it's a big deal, and unsurprisingly, I think Ty is right to question it. If he questioned it after the fact you'd just say he's a second guesser.

This nation building stuff is hard. I think we've proven this many times over just in the reversals we've made during our Iraq exploits. But as you say, I can give it some time. It will be an interesting year for the Iraq project.

Too much choice
 

Given that, at the time the question was asked, I think about 800 of the group's 833 HV's had already been uparmored, he was probably referring to the anthropic principle.*

(If the laws of the Universe were not conducive to the development of intelligent creatures to ask about the initial conditions of the Universe, intelligent life would never have evolved to ask the question in the first place. If the vehicles lacked armor to the extent people made it sound, the soldier would have already been dead, along with lots of other soldiers in that group, and could never have asked the question.)

((Yes, I'm reaching in the analogy, but I've wanted to refer to the anthropic principle for weeks, and I can just barely shoehorn this in here.))

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

Does this mean Dean will try again?

This is Unbelievable
 

Before you get all hot and bothered, wait for an article that makes clear what's going on. From this, it's hard to tell:

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

That was kind of my point. Just because you hold an election and people get a chance to cast a ballot, that doesn't mean you have a democracy. Voting is not an end in itself.

The bulk may be trying right now, but it doesn't seem to be going very well. When the police are targets, that's bad.

You're not paying attention to who's actually running and what they're saying, are you? Or does this religion-neutral group have a name?

Meanwhile, the question I've been talking about is not really about who's going to win. The question is about whether Sunnis are going to be represented much at all.

I think I understand your optimism, but in a clinical way I'm not sure you'd appreciate. It would indeed be wonderful if what you describe were to happen. I've never argued with the wondrousness of the vision. This is kind of like arguing about Jaguars or Land Rovers. They're good-looking cars. Me, I wouldn't buy one unless I had the money for the repairs, and for a nice second car to drive while the first one's in the shop. You're not going to change my mind by telling me how nice the Jaguar or Land Rover is when it runs.

Which is not even to get to your crap about Kerry, since conservatives here were so busy saying that his plan was the same as Bush's. I think there is no particular virtue with sticking with a failing policy instead of trying something new, but whatever.

No, this I really don't understand. Because the people who really believe in this vision of democratizing the Middle East should be ripped at Rumsfeld and Bush right now for screwing it up by trying to do it on the cheap. I can respect the neo-cons who had this vision. I disagreed, but I can respect the views. But this last comment tells me that for you, it's about shilling for Bush et al., not about a vision of democracy in the Middle East.

Why Aren't We Talking About This?
 

2. As an aside, an NPR radio story this morning talked about the major Shia party in the election. When asked about reporters about the party's stance on the "issues," they had no articulable position on any issue at all, save getting the Americans out of country as soon as fucking possible.

Agree with the thrust of your point that this election seems to be almost entirely about ethnic and religious blocks. Bilmore's vision of these folks putting those divisions aside to make it all work is indeed nifty, and I wish it to be so, but from the reports that we've seen coming out of there, and the fact that this election seems to revolve almost entirely around the ethnic and religious divisions that Bilmore thinks we'll get past on Feb 1, I can't see it.


2. See, e.g., Bill Kristol.

Too much choice
 

You should have kept waiting.

Too much choice
 

He who hesitates is Faust.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

The Financial Times is reporting today that

link (internal links omitted)

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

You realize the fact that we're hearing about this means that the people in charge are not ignoring and covering it up, don't you?

Does this mean you now acknowledge that the UN's oil for food was a big bribe fest for the Un and perhaps some secuity Council members?

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

Congrats. You win today's Silver Lining award.

Don't hold your breath waiting for Norm Coleman to talk about this.
 

Nifty argument. Does this similarly mean that the publicity of the UN scandal constitutes a breath of fresh disenfectant, such that even the Slaves of the world will embrace it as the solution going forward?

The circle is indeed a vicious one.