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

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Egypt, Nigeria, Malaysia, Turkey, Malaysia, Indonesia -- all those countries would have been helpful at the outset, being Muslem countries and all.

Helpful how?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Helpful how?

Having troops from those countries to occupy Iraq and maintain law and order would have made it seem less like a Western, Christian occupation.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having troops from those countries to occupy Iraq and maintain law and order would have made it seem less like a Western, Christian occupation.

Please, the problem is sunnis killing shias and visa versa.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
Please, the problem is sunnis killing shias and visa versa.

Sure, now it is. They'd help much less now.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The UK has different ethnic groups all under one flag. You were predicting that Scotland would go its own way some day, but it hasn't yet. Nor has Wales. And then there's Northern Ireland. We're not even out of the British Isles. Spain has various issues. France and Spain have the Basques. There's Switzerland and Belgium. There are ethnic Germans all over the place. Poland's borders have moved all over the place, partly for the same reason. Konigsberg was German before it became Russian. Ukraine and other former SSRs are full of Russians. And so on.

So, not just one exception.

So are you saying those excpetions show that Europe is not mainly broken down by ethnolinguistic borders?

Like I said, 95%. In order for you to show that the force isn't all that important, at least fifty percent of the people would have to live in countries that don't share the name as their own native tongue. But like I said it is 95%.

The examples you used were lame. The British Isles have the most subtel ethnolinguistic difference. They all speak English yet they are dividing. They are dividing because they used to have different native tongues and they have strong accents. Yes Spain and France have the basgues. Have these basques complained at all about not having their own country? What percentage of the Spanish and French population do the basque comprise? German ethnic all over the place? As far as I know, when Hitler was in power most all of the Germans in Eastern Europe were moved to Germany.

Polands borders have been moved soit is more ethnically Polish. After WWII Polands east was filled with Ukrainians, after WWII those areas were returned to the Ukraine. The Western part of Ukrain was cleansed of Germans and Replaced with the Poles there were intermingled with the Ukrainians in the Area that is now part of Ukraine.

Konigsberg was full of Germans. No Russians. It was cleansed of all Germans and filled in with Russians. Now it is ethnically Russian and still part of Russia. How is that an exception.

Yes Ukraine, Kazakhstan, the Baltics, Byelorussia all had a lot of russians at the break up of the Soviet Union and they have all been draining out. Kazakstan was 45% Russian, not is like twenty five percent and dropping. Same is true of all of them.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Cite?

In reverse Chronlogical order

Devolution of power in Great Britain to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
1) Kozovo. Serbias attempt to ethnically clens it of albanians to make Serbia pure, the US putting the Albanians back in and separating it from Serbia.
2) Montenegro splitting off.
3) Dayton Peace Accords. The whole map they drew went through painstaking efforts to match political borders with ethnolinguistic borders in Boznia
4) Break off of Slovenia
5) Break of of Croatia
6) Ethnic cleansing of Croatia to get rid of ethnic Serbs
7) Macedonia leaving
8) Czechoslovakia splitting
9) reunification of Germany
10) Poland being moved and ethnically cleansed so it is almost all Polish right after WWII.
11) The ethnic cleansing of the Czech republic of Germans after WWII.
12) Ethnic cleansing of Konigsburg turning it into Kalingrad
13) Before the WWII the separatio of Finland from Russia
14) Separation of Poland from Russia and Germany
15) creation of Hungary
16) Creation of bulgaria
17) Creation of Romania
18) Creation of Albania

etc. etc. etc. Can you name some border changes that occured that made political boundaries conform less to ethnolinguistic boundaries in the past seventy years in Europe?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I guess that makes them another exception. At some point, you need to find new rules to explain the exceptions.

When the exceptions cross the ten percent barrier, and we stop calling them exceptions, then you might have a point. But actually you have no point until at least the majority of people in Europe don't conform to ethnolinguistic boundaries. And still if borders were drawn randomly, fifty percent would be way above a coincidence. A force that determines which political borders fifty percent of Europeans lived in would still be considered a pretty strong and overwhelming force. 95 percent makes it overwhelming and pretty much omnipresent. Can you name another force that has pushed borders around Europe and that has decided where people live that even comes close to the success that the force that pushes for ethnolinguistic conformity has had?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Having troops from those countries to occupy Iraq and maintain law and order would have made it seem less like a Western, Christian occupation.

Yes like we can count on those troops to implement effective law enforcement or expect them to do anything competantly. Have you heard the stories of what UN troops (especially the Nigerians you cite - and the indonesians track record is pretty bad to) do in countries they occupy? My cousin was stationed in Bosnia and he said that the Russians just ran amock. Selling weapons, harassing the natives, starting organized crime syndicates etc.

The troops from those countries you cite don't maintain law and order. They break the laws that they are supposed to enforce. You need disciplined soldiers (which means soliders not from the countries you cited) and soldiers that are willing to fight (that rules out most of NATO).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Yes like we can count on those troops to implement effective law enforcement or expect them to do anything competantly. Have you heard the stories of what UN troops (especially the Nigerians you cite - and the indonesians track record is pretty bad to) do in countries they occupy? My cousin was stationed in Bosnia and he said that the Russians just ran amock. Selling weapons, harassing the natives, starting organized crime syndicates etc.

The troops from those countries you cite don't maintain law and order. They break the laws that they are supposed to enforce. You need disciplined soldiers (which means soliders not from the countries you cited) and soldiers that are willing to fight (that rules out most of NATO).

I find the juxtaposition of this post with your optimism that we can somehow raise an Iraqi army and police force that will bring peace to the country, um, shall we say, odd. If these sorts of forces weren't going to be of any use at the outset of the occupation, then we were well and truly screwed.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

On European borders, you first tell me that the ethnic differences in the British Isles are de minimus, and yet then you count them at the start of your list proving that borders tend to follow ethnic divides. If I were to haul out the historical atlases, I could point to a number of changes in European borders that you've skipped. Since you count Bulgarian independence as support, read this and count up all the border changes in the first decades of Bulgaria's existence as such. None appear to have been motivated by an effort to redraw borders to follow ethnic or linguistic groupings on the ground.

You are now arguing that ethnic cleansing and forced relocation, etc., often result in populations moving to conform to borders. I agree. But this doesn't support the predictions you made at the outset that borders will move. It suggests that borders will remain where they are, and that peoples will move.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On European borders, you first tell me that the ethnic differences in the British Isles are de minimus, and yet then you count them at the start of your list proving that borders tend to follow ethnic divides.

In other words the force is so strong it even exerts itself on small ethnic differences let alone the real distinct ones. There are so few borders left that don't follow ethnoinguistic lines the force is down to excerting itself to the slightest ethnolinguistic differences.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop If I were to haul out the historical atlases, I could point to a number of changes in European borders that you've skipped. Since you count Bulgarian independence as support, read this and count up all the border changes in the first decades of Bulgaria's existence as such. None appear to have been motivated by an effort to redraw borders to follow ethnic or linguistic groupings on the ground.

Skipped? You asked me for border changes that conformed to my theory. You didn't ask me for ones that didn't. Now you are just getting pathetic. And are you saying that the poitical borders of Bulgaria don't follow ethnic bulgarian lines? Just list four significant border changes that happened in the last forty years that made the political borders of Europe conform less to ethnolinguistic lines?

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop You are now arguing that ethnic cleansing and forced relocation, etc., often result in populations moving to conform to borders. I agree. But this doesn't support the predictions you made at the outset that borders will move. It suggests that borders will remain where they are, and that peoples will move.

Man you are just being intentionaly obtuse in the face of overwhelming evidence. Everyone takes as a given that Europes borders conform to ethnolinguistic lines, but you fight it. I said that over time political borders conform more and more to political boundaries. I did not limit that to just political borders moving. I listed most of the major border movements of the past seventy five years, and you talk to me about adjustment to Bulgaria that started a hundred and thirty years agos.

I also found it pathetic that you are having to look stuff up on Wikepedia to counter my argument when this stuff is coming right off the top of my head. If you have to look stuff up to counter me doesn't that show you are looking for stuff that is pretty obsure and not as relevent?

The creation of Bulgaria in itself was a huge step towards making Europe conform more to ethnolinquistic borders. At that point sixty percent of the people that spoke bulgarian lived in Bulgaria. The rest was just minor tinkering. And now Bulgaria is like ninety percent Bulgarian.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I find the juxtaposition of this post with your optimism that we can somehow raise an Iraqi army and police force that will bring peace to the country, um, shall we say, odd. If these sorts of forces weren't going to be of any use at the outset of the occupation, then we were well and truly screwed.

So you are admitting that the help of these countries wouldn't have meant anything. Good.

Who trained these other forces? Are you saying we can't do better than these pathetic armies when training the Iraqis. The Iraqis are being trained by the most effective and professional army in the world.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
So you are admitting that the help of these countries wouldn't have meant anything. Good.

Who trained these other forces? Are you saying we can't do better than these pathetic armies when training the Iraqis. The Iraqis are being trained by the most effective and professional army in the world.

I think I prefer talking about nationalism just now.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
On European borders, you first tell me that the ethnic differences in the British Isles are de minimus, and yet then you count them at the start of your list proving that borders tend to follow ethnic divides. If I were to haul out the historical atlases, I could point to a number of changes in European borders that you've skipped. Since you count Bulgarian independence as support, read this and count up all the border changes in the first decades of Bulgaria's existence as such. None appear to have been motivated by an effort to redraw borders to follow ethnic or linguistic groupings on the ground.

You are now arguing that ethnic cleansing and forced relocation, etc., often result in populations moving to conform to borders. I agree. But this doesn't support the predictions you made at the outset that borders will move. It suggests that borders will remain where they are, and that peoples will move.

Norway = 95.8% Norwegian
Sweden = 90%
Finland = 94%
Denmark = 97.5%
Ireland = 96%
France = 92% Basque = .04%
Netherlands = 97%
Belgium = Flemmish + Waloon = 93%
Portugal = 99.1%
Spain 96.7% Basque = 2.3%
Italy 96.5%
Greece = 98%
Germany 95%
Austria = 97% German
Poland = 97%
Czeck = 94%
Slovakia = 90%
Hungary = 93%
Romania = 90%
Albania = 96%
Ukraine = 78%

Even Russia with all its ethnic Republics is = 83%

Sensng a pattern here? Don't think the political borders conform to ethnolinguistic boundaries? Don't think this trend hasn't grown significanlty in the past 100 years?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Skipped? You asked me for border changes that conformed to my theory. You didn't ask me for ones that didn't.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought I asked you for a cite for your suggestion that 95% (or some such proportion) of European border changes conformed to the distribution of ethnic and linguistic groups.

And are you saying that the poitical borders of Bulgaria don't follow ethnic bulgarian lines?

I was pointing out that Bulgaria's borders changed repeatedly for reasons that apparently had everything to do with land grabs by other countries and nothing to do with following the distribution of Bulgarians.

Man you are just being intentionaly obtuse in the face of overwhelming evidence. Everyone takes as a given that Europes borders conform to ethnolinguistic lines, but you fight it.

I agree that it's most often true. But the debate we were having -- I thought -- was not about whether there is any truth to this phenomenom, but whether its is the sort of unstoppable world historical force that will inevitably redraw the map everywhere else. The more exceptions to it, the shakier your predictions look.

I said that over time political borders conform more and more to political boundaries. I did not limit that to just political borders moving.

The distinction you are drawing here eludes me. Sorry.

I listed most of the major border movements of the past seventy five years, and you talk to me about adjustment to Bulgaria that started a hundred and thirty years agos.

I also found it pathetic that you are having to look stuff up on Wikepedia to counter my argument when this stuff is coming right off the top of my head. If you have to look stuff up to counter me doesn't that show you are looking for stuff that is pretty obsure and not as relevent?

Dude -- the "creation of Bulgaria" is on your list, at #16. You brought it up, so I pointed to a bunch of times that Bulgaria's borders have changed since then. Rather than respond to each of your items, I picked that one, since I know a little about it. I will admit that I had forgotten some of the details of (e.g.) the Treaty of San Stefano.

The creation of Bulgaria in itself was a huge step towards making Europe conform more to ethnolinquistic borders. At that point sixty percent of the people that spoke bulgarian lived in Bulgaria. The rest was just minor tinkering. And now Bulgaria is like ninety percent Bulgarian.

OK, but like I said: If you're saying that once nations are formed, they tend to become more ethnically and linguistically homogenous, I agree -- but that is not support for what we started out discussing, which is whether the map is going to keep changing. All that is a reason to believe that the map will stay the same.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
Norway = 95.8% Norwegian
Sweden = 90%
Finland = 94%
Denmark = 97.5%
Ireland = 96%
France = 92%
Netherlands = 97%
Belgium = Flemmish + Waloon = 93%
Portugal = 99.1%
Italy 96.5%
Greece = 98%
Germany 95%
Austria = 97% German
Poland = 97%
Czeck = 94%
Slovakia = 90%
Hungary = 93%
Romania = 90%
Albania = 96%
Ukraine = 78%

Even Russia with all its ethnic Republicans is = 83%

Sensng a pattern here? Don't think the political borders conform to ethnolinguistic boundaries? Don't think this trend hasn't grown significanlty in the past 100 years?

You're not responding to me. Europe's map hasn't changed all that much in the last 100 years, relative to prior centuries. If what you say is true, then all of this suggests that states become more homogenous, not that world maps are going to change more and more as they develop.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Perhaps I misunderstood you, but I thought I asked you for a cite for your suggestion that 95% (or some such proportion) of European border changes conformed to the distribution of ethnic and linguistic groups.

I said nine out of ten I think in the past seventy five years. I think I definitely showed that.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I was pointing out that Bulgaria's borders changed repeatedly for reasons that apparently had everything to do with land grabs by other countries and nothing to do with following the distribution of Bulgarians.

You picked the country with the most border changes and most of them happening a long time ago, and Bulgaria ended up with 90% Bulgarians. So like I keep saying the force just keeps pushing.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I agree that it's most often true. But the debate we were having -- I thought -- was not about whether there is any truth to this phenomenom, but whether its is the sort of unstoppable world historical force that will inevitably redraw the map everywhere else. The more exceptions to it, the shakier your predictions look.

No it doesn't. It depends on the overall numbers. Nothing in Geopolitics is absolute. We are talking about a billion people in Europe. You could go on all day with exceptions, but the question is how significant they are. A Frenchman living in Russia is an exception, but in no way significant. The borders all over Europe almost conform to ethnolinguistic borders. And most of the places where they don't: Belgium, Eastern Ukrain, Crimea, Kosovo the Basques, there are problems. Were the linguistic distinctions are minor the problems are still there: Scotland, Ireland, and Catalonia. So where the political borders are aligned with ethnolinguistic borders (most of the borders) there is no trouble, but in most of the places they are not aligned there is trouble. Seems like a pretty overwhelming force to me.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
The distinction you are drawing here eludes me. Sorry.

Sometimes you are not very bright. Let me try and explain. You claimed I said that only political borders moved to conform more to ethnolinguistic lines. I said that there is trend towards ethnolinguistic lines mirroring political lines. That means both borders and ethnolinguistic borders can move to align more directly (not just borders moving). So when you said that ethnic cleansing and movements of people did not support my theory, I pointed out they did because those concern ethnolinguistic lines moving, and those are covered under my theory.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Dude -- the "creation of Bulgaria" is on your list, at #16. You brought it up, so I pointed to a bunch of times that Bulgaria's borders have changed since then. Rather than respond to each of your items, I picked that one, since I know a little about it. I will admit that I had forgotten some of the details of (e.g.) the Treaty of San Stefano.

Bull shit.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
OK, but like I said: If you're saying that once nations are formed, they tend to become more ethnically and linguistically homogenous, I agree -- but that is not support for what we started out discussing, which is whether the map is going to keep changing. All that is a reason to believe that the map will stay the same.

The map changes also. Have you looked at different maps of Europe from different times? Have you noticed that the current political map of europe conforms more closely to ethnolinguistic lines than the political map of europe fifty years ago. That map conforms more than the one fifty years before it, etc. etc.

2000 the lines are the most aligned in europes history
1950 less alinged than 2000 but more than 1900
1900 less aligned than 1950 but more than 1850.
1850 same
1800 same
1750 Same

2050 will most certianly be more aligned than 2000. In fact Montenegros split from Serbia has accomplished this. If you don't count that all it will take is Belgium breaking up, Scotland leaving, Ireland recombining, Catalan breaking off, crimea moving to Russia, Moldova and Romania combining etc. You know that no political lines will move to make themselves conform less to ethnolinguistic lines.

But you don't think this is a strong trend, the political lines changing?