A disgusting vat of filth that no self-respecting intelligent person would wade into.

[SlaveNoMore]

I am in awe of Steyn. He always hits it right on the head:

Isn’t the main problem with the Iraq Study Group that it’s just majorly lame? Almost anybody could crank out this kind of generalized boilerplate (“We were told by a general/a translator/my taxi driver/my Ukrainian hooker…”), and most of us could do it without a budget of gazillions of dollars and an Annie Leibovitz photo session.

Of course, Syria “should” do this and Iran “should” do that and, if they were Sandra Day O’Connor, I’m sure they would. But they’re not. And the only specific strategic proposal is a linkage between Iraq and a “renewed and sustained commitment” to a “comprehensive Arab-Israeli peace” – which concedes the same ludicrous rationale that the Saudi King Abdullah and all the rest of them make: that one tiny ten-mile sliver of Jews is the reason why millions of Muslims from the Straits of Gibraltar to the Emirates are mired in dictatorships, failed economies and jihadist fever. For the Baker group to endorse this clapped out pan-Arabism is disgusting. An “Arab-Israeli peace”? What does that mean? What exactly is Israel doing to Iraq, or Tunisia, or Qatar, or any other Arabs except those in the “Palestinian territories”? To frame it in those terms is to adopt the pathologies of the enemy. Shame on Baker, Hamilton and all the rest.

As for the insight on page 94 that so impressed Rich, yes, it’s true that the DIA and other analytical agencies don’t have a lot of strength in depth. But why is that? It’s certainly not because the US taxpayer isn’t showering them with dollars. It’s to do with a bureaucratic torpor that has proved almost totally resistant to any attempts to reform it since 9/11. And, while we may well “engage” with Syria and Iran to no effect, and US troops may well put their left foot in and take their right foot out, the one thing you can guarantee won’t be shaken all about is the torpid bureaucracy – of which this stillborn report is yet one more example.

from the Corner

[SlaveNoMore]

"[T]ell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb. None of you made it out of the Green Zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?"

-- Jonathan Karl of ABC News, to the assembled "wise men" of the ISG

[Spanky]

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....qjq06iek.html

Why is the right of return such a no no to talk about? These people were either kicked out of their homes or scared from their homes and never allowed to return.

Isn't what happened to them a legitimate grievance?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"[T]ell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb. None of you made it out of the Green Zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?"

-- Jonathan Karl of ABC News, to the assembled "wise men" of the ISG

Maybe he wants to have a better sense of what's happening over there?

• The Bush administration routinely has underreported the level of violence in Iraq in order to disguise its policy failings, the Iraq Study Group report said Wednesday.
  
  ...
  
  On page 94 of its report, the Iraq Study Group found that there had been "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq." The reason, the group said, was because the tracking system was designed in a way that minimized the deaths of Iraqis.
  
  "The standard for recording attacks acts a filter to keep events out of reports and databases," the report said. "A murder of an Iraqi is not necessarily counted as an attack. If we cannot determine the source of a sectarian attack, that assault does not make it into the database. A roadside bomb or a rocket or mortar attack that doesn't hurt U.S. personnel doesn't count."

link

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
"[T]ell me, why should the president give more weight to what you all have said given, as I understand, you went to Iraq once, with the exception of Senator Robb. None of you made it out of the Green Zone. Why should he give your recommendations any more weight than what he's hearing from his commanders on the ground in Iraq?"

-- Jonathan Karl of ABC News, to the assembled "wise men" of the ISG

Excellent question.

[andViolins]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....qjq06iek.html

Why is the right of return such a no no to talk about? These people were either kicked out of their homes or scared from their homes and never allowed to return.

Isn't what happened to them a legitimate grievance?

Because you are talking about more than just those people who left Israel. When discussing the right of return, the Palestinians argue that all of their family members/descendents be allowed to "return" as well. With the numbers that are discussed, such an influx of people would make non-Jews the majority in the country.

aV

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe he wants to have a better sense of what's happening over there?
[list]The Bush administration routinely has underreported the level of violence in Iraq in order to disguise its policy failings, the Iraq Study Group report said Wednesday.

...

On page 94 of its report, the Iraq Study Group found that there had been "significant under-reporting of the violence in Iraq." The reason, the group said, was because the tracking system was designed in a way that minimized the deaths of Iraqis.

You are assuming that the Bush administration passes on everything they hear about Iraq. The Bush administration has the facts. What you are having issue is the spin they put on such facts when they report to the public. But these clowns are not privy to any information that Bush's commanders are not.

I just read the executive summary. The report doesn't say anything that isn't obvious or been said before.

I watched the new secretary of defense. People were praising him because "he was willing to listen". Listen to whom? Why should the secretary of defense get advice on how to deal with Iraq from Congress? What are these guys privy to that he is not? Why would he listen to some used car salesmen elected from South Dakota, when in his limited time he could listen to someone in the field?

We want a good man for the job that will effectively manage the DOD. That and sucking up to congress are completely non related.

The only mistake I see was not using more troops. That might have made the situation in Iraq better. But what is happening now may have been unavoidable. Since the paper does not recommend more troops it is a useless document.

Iran and Syria aren't going to help with Iraq. Like the Democrats, it is in their interest that the US fail, no matter what the costs. They want the US to get a black eye and no amount of diplomacy is going to change that.

It pretty much said we are doing everything that can be done, except for a few minor things that we need to "try harder" at, in sum we just need to hope things get better.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
I find what he say interesting, and since I am the epicenter of the universe, that is all that matters.

Did you see the $64,000 questions? Why are people nationalistic? Why do they like to live in countries whose political boundaries conform to national boundaries?

How come there is a West Virginia?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by andViolins
Because you are talking about more than just those people who left Israel. When discussing the right of return, the Palestinians argue that all of their family members/descendents be allowed to "return" as well. With the numbers that are discussed, such an influx of people would make non-Jews the majority in the country.

aV

So we don't talk about it? You have to admit that there is a strong argument that kicking them out was not exactly the most moral thing to. And taking the homes away from these people and not letting them return could be viewed as not exactly the most just or fair act ever committed. And for the US to ignore what happened kinds of takes us off the moral high ground, does it not?

Unless we at least acknowledged that these people were wronged, don't we lose any credibility as an honest broker?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
How come there is a West Virginia?

They weren't big fans of slavery?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
I think some of them remain because they are practical and make some sort of sense politicaly or economically. But this irrational push towards border that follow language borders always seems to be there.

Except when it isn't. And it's not clear to me that the number of exceptions is falling.

What other states in Western Europe have multiple languages besides Belgium and Swizerland?

Spain. Finland has a Swedish-speaking minority and is officially bilingual. (I learned this from a Swedish-speaking Finn who was at our house for Thanksgiving.) Aren't there plenty of Italian speakers in Italy and Austria?

It is hard to think of one in central and eastern europe. Maybe Romania because of all the hungarians and Ukraine becuase of the Russians in the Eastern part.

I have spent some time in Switzlerand. Each ethnic group does not like the other one and they each form their own distinct culture. The only thing holding them together is economic and political expediency. But I think most Swiss think of theselves as Swiss German, or Swiss French, etc. as opposed to just Swiss.

But still Swiss German or Swiss French, as opposed to German or French. Their nationality means something, distinct from their language. And c'mon -- don't they all love chocolate and St. Bernard's?

When you are talking about the nation state, when most people refer to a nation they are referring to a people with a common language, culture, history liteature etc, not a political boundary. The state part refers to the political boundaries. So a when the national boundaries conform to political boundaries you get a nation state.

A nation may have all those things, but not necessarily. Many nations do not share a common language, etc. And yet they still cohere as nations.

The Soviet Union and Yugoslavia where not nation states in the classical sense. When I was refering to nationalism I was talking about pride in ones people, not to the political entity that is their home, that is patriotism.

The USSR claimed to be a consortium of nations, some of which had their own UN seats, etc.

Yugoslavia worked longer than a lot of people thought it would.

But often the term nation and nationalism are used to refer to any political entity and ones pride in it, and you seemed to be getting confused about which type of nation I was talking about (the non-political kind). So to make it clear that when I was talking about nation and nationalism, I was referring to the cultural and language identity, and not polical entities, I used the term ethnic nation. There is no way to confuse ethnic nation because it is redundant. It just reconfirms what definition of nation I am using. Kurdistan is an ethnic nation. It is not a state. How can the term ethnic nation be confusing?

Because ethnicity and nationality are two different things. They often overlap, but sometimes not. In many nations, ethnicity is a core party of people conceive the nation. In others, not. The United States does not share a common ethnicity.

Kurdistan is a funny case. Maybe they'll have a nation soon. Kurdistan is close, but not there yet.

Is there a part of Hawaii that is all Hawaiin but there are no Howlis? If one part of the Island was all Hawaiin with no Howlis my guess is that some of them would be pushing for independence.

I was trying to point out that if you wind the clock back, Hawaii was much more Hawaiian that haole.

But there pressure is there. The Whistle on the tea post doesn't have to sound, for you to be able to show that there is pressure on the pot. Some pots are stronger than others, and some water boils hotter than others, but there is always heated water in the Kettle (as long as there are ethnic groups that are lumped together and aren't either separate or part of larger nation made up of their kin).

I don't disagree with you that nationalism has something going on. I don't yet buy your claim that economic development makes it more likely that national and ethnic identity will coincide.

When you have soup you don't get ethnic movements. The Hawaiins are the only peole on the island that could form a "nation". They have a common language, heritage etc. Unless a bunch of Chineses or ethnic group moves en mass to Hawaii and then comprised at least eighty percent of the population of a defined area, there will be no Hawaiin separatist movement.

I don't understand how you can look at Hawaii and think it supports the larger argument you are making.

Wouldn't you say that the American Revolution was pretty much a tax revolt. And if the taxes hadn't been instituted there probably would have been no revolution. Tea might be an oversimplificatin, but taxes are not. Same thing with Serbian nationalism. But of the three wars in the twentieth century WWI was the least about nationalism.

The American Revolution was more about American nationalism than WWI was about Serbian nationalism.

What did you say I didn't respond to?

Let me put it this way: Austria had been a country for a long time. Its residents perceived it as such. People there weren't agitating (for the most part) to became part of Germany. Yes, Hitler occupied Austria, claiming to protect the ethnic Germans there. But how can you claim that this was "about" German nationalism, as opposed to racial or ethnic identity?

Garibaldis revolution of and unification of Italy was a classic nationalistic war. Most wars in Europe were about gaining land or power. WWI was because the Austrian Empire decided to stomp on Serbian nationalism and it let to a huge war.

OK, but Germany and Turkey were not fighting to suppress Serbian nationalism, and the British, French and Italians were not fighting for it.

Sikhism is a religion. Everyone in Pujab is an ethnic Punjabi. The ones that are not Sikh are just Hindi and not Sikh but they are still Punjabi. When Pakistan split from India, Punjab was divided into two parts. So Punjab in Pakistan also has a lot of Sikhs but everyone in Pakistani Punjab speaks Punjabi and same goes for Indian Punjab.

Many of the Sikhs that live outside of Punjab are other ethnicites that have been converted to Sikhism. So they are the ethnicity of whatever region they live in. There are a lot of Punjabis that live outside of Punjab but they are not concentrated anywhere. They are spread out over a country of a billion people. There are lot of French that live outside of France(scattered throughout Europe) but that doesn't mean that it isn't easy to draw where the French language starts and where it ends in Europe. Same goes for India. Languages stop and start at borders just like they do in Europe. It is just as easy to draw a line around where Punjabi is spoken as it is to draw a line around where French is spoken in Europe.

But you're not drawing a line "around" where Punjabi is spoken -- you've just acknowledged that it's spoken by minorities elsewhere in India. You're just drawing a line around the places where it's a majority.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....qjq06iek.html

Why is the right of return such a no no to talk about? These people were either kicked out of their homes or scared from their homes and never allowed to return.

Isn't what happened to them a legitimate grievance?

As you know, I am a high powered lawyer with major clients. Anyways, I'm at one of my client's training facilities becoming even more skilled in their technology.

They have a significant Arab customer base. I've been to the training center before and I noticed in the men's room a side room with a locked door and Arabic on a small window. through the window I can see what looks like a prayer rug. Last time I was only with lawyers from the company and when I asked about the room they said they thought muslims prayed pre or after potty time and the room was for that.

So I googled and it turns out that prayer is required for a strict religious potty break (after- required before would lead to accidents) BUT the name of Allah can't be mentioned in the restroom which implied to me that the room wasn't for that.

Today I am in a general class with a full time instructor. He tells me the room is for bathing the feet before praying.

I thought that was interesting, lthough unlikely to lead to follow up discussion.

Is the company insensitive to Malaysian Muslims, or do most speak Arabic?

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/1....qjq06iek.html

Why is the right of return such a no no to talk about? These people were either kicked out of their homes or scared from their homes and never allowed to return.

Isn't what happened to them a legitimate grievance?

Where's the "right of return" for all the Jews that were kicked out of ...well....everywhere?

Jordan threw the Palis out too. You don't hear them clamoring to go back to Jordan. Not that Jordan would take them. Or Iran. Or any other nation of Muslim Brothers

"Right of return" is a PC way of saying "Flood Israel with Arabs to make it an Arab country and make the Jews a powerless minority"

The true result would be genocide.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
They weren't big fans of slavery?

weren't they Virginians who didn't like slavery?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
See - give me a shorter take and I can get back into it.

I'm not at all convinced people are nationalistic; I think that we all identify ourselves in a variety of ways, and that those ways vary depending on time and place. There is a need for group identity, but it can be a religious, linguistic, regional, tribal or ethnic identify, or some combination of them.

What was Yugoslavia is a great example. Today, there are almost tribal nationalisms. A hundred years ago, the Pan-Slavic movement reigned supreme (Yugoslavia translates to "South slav", and the country itself was the outcome of a very conscious effort to develop a Slavic consciousness out of the mess that was the disintegrating Ottoman empire), and declaring a strong affinity to being "Bosnian" would have been unthinkable.

Nationalisms also come and go. I don't think Cornish national sentiment is strong any more, for example. And the people who are the Scots today developed from many very different tribal configurations.

I wish this were true but I don't think it is. Regional or Relgious identity makes sense to me. You want to cooperate with your neighbors because you have shared interests, or you want to be around people that share your value system.

But it seems to me, for some reason people want to be governed by people who have the same native tongue. If they didn't then why is Europe, which is the most affluent and democratic part of the old word, divided by language. That is the biggest factor in determining what country you are born in. Your native language. If your native langue is French, and you were born in Europe, there is like a 95% you were born in France. That is true for almost every language.

For hundreds of years the borders had nothing to do with language. But now it is the single most important factor when it comes to borders. If you are French, and live in a French speaking area, you and your French neighbors seem to be much happier being ruled by a corrupt and evil French King or parliament, than a highly benevolent, prudent and competent German or Spanish King or Parliament.

It doesn't make any rational sense (actually, like racism it is downright stupid and counterproductive) but it seems to be part of the human condition like hemorrhoids.

As for Yugoslavia:

I thought Yugo meant "pan" for panslavia.

I think Pan Slavism was doomed because the people can't really talk to each other. It seems to be part of human nature to not trust someone whose native tongue is unintelligible to you or at least hard for you to understand.