The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Well, I guess I'm positing more equal opponents, such as part of Turkey splitting away to rejoin their Kurdish neighbors, to the dismay of the rest of Turkey.

If by dismay, you mean a conflict that may very well grow into WWIII, then I think we're positing the same thing.

The scenario I'm looking at is potential war between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey simultaneously against the Kurds. Add in fighting between the Pashtuns and the Urdu in Afghanstan, several of the former Soviet Republics, and Turkey. Then consider a religious struggle between the Wahhabist Saudis and the largely non-citizen Shiite migrant worker population triggering a similar conflict across the Arab states.

Mind you, I'm not predicting all this happening for certain or happening this week. But I do see these potential conflicts keeping the US, and eventually a few other unwanted foreign peacekeeping forces in the ME for the indefinite future.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq for the very complicated reason that I fear we have stuck our thimb in a hole in the dike and rather than stopping the leak, we have weakened the whole wall.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Spanky
Actually I think you misinterpreted me and, unfortunately I don't think you are wrong in your last conclusion. The only thing I think is inevitable is the change. How violent it will be will depend on the government whose jurisdictions includes different ethnic groups or divide ethnic groups. But history has taught us no one likes to give up power. The break up of the Soviet Union was the exception not the rule.

The pull towards ethnic nation states is like boiling water in a sealed pot. As long as the fire is burning the pressure inside the pot will increase. You can keep reinforcing the pot (more repression) or let out steam (give in to ethnic demands). As long as the fire is burning the steam will get out one way or another. You can keep reinforcing the pot but at some point you will run out of material to reinforce the pot and it will explode. The only way to stop the steam from getting out is putting out the fire (and the only way to put out the fire is through ethnic cleansing). Unfortunately I think US policy will be to encourage the respective governments to reinforce the pot.

This happened with Bush One in the Ukraine. When it was still part of the Soviet Union he went to Ukraine and told them they should not get any ideas about national independence. In other words the soviet union would not break. I developed my theory in college so at the time I thought his "Chiken Kiev" speech was completely the wrong move. But it did not occur to me I would be proved right so quickly.

Another example is Kosovo. Eventually Kosovo will leave Serbia and in the longer term it will join with Albania. One way or another that will happen.

See my post above. My bottom line is I see us investing a lot of money, years, and lives keeping the Middle East from lowing us all up, and I blame the invasion of Iraq for being the straw that will eventually break the camel's back if we aren't very careful.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
You've been sending them those "conservatives don't spend like drunken sailors" e-mails again, haven't you?

Exactly. And for some reason they are awful sensitive to criticism and as you can tell from this board, I am not the most diplomatic person.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
The scenario I'm looking at is potential war between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey simultaneously against the Kurds. Add in fighting between the Pashtuns and the Urdu in Afghanstan, several of the former Soviet Republics, and Turkey. Then consider a religious struggle between the Wahhabist Saudis and the largely non-citizen Shiite migrant worker population triggering a similar conflict across the Arab states.

I share your dismay at the scenario, but think that this is going to occur. I can't see any other eventual outcome. I don't know if it will be sooner or later, but I can't make the leap that we should not have liberated Iraq because its newly-liberated peoples will now be empowered to start to reform boundaries that were arbitrarily and inelegantly imposed upon them.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk
See my post above. My bottom line is I see us investing a lot of money, years, and lives keeping the Middle East from lowing us all up, and I blame the invasion of Iraq for being the straw that will eventually break the camel's back if we aren't very careful.

I saw Saddam Hussein (besides being a sadistic genocidal murderer) as being a major force in reinforcing the Kettle. As long as he was there we were going to get no closer to the ethnic rearrangement. The US by kicking Saddam Hussein out and installing a democracy has let out a lot of steam. Now the people can realize their dreams. It was a huge step in the right direction. However, we can screw up what we have accomplished by trying to stop the Kurds from leaving.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
I saw Saddam Hussein (besides being a sadistic genocidal murderer) as being a major force in reinforcing the Kettle. As long as he was there we were going to get no closer to the ethnic rearrangement. The US by kicking Saddam Hussein out and installing a democracy has let out a lot of steam. Now the people can realize their dreams. It was a huge step in the right direction. However, we can screw up what we have accomplished by trying to stop the Kurds from leaving.

I'm guessing that the admin's lack of support for a Kurdish separation to date has more to do with keeping Turkey happy while we're there than with any long-term philosophy. Once we start seriously pulling out, I think we hear Rice speaking in terms of peoples' rights of self-determination.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by bilmore
If all of this leads to ten years of low-grade revolutionary fighting in all of those venues followed by the end of the present arbitrary national bounderies, mightn't that be the pressure reliever that finally brings stability to the ME?

(Not that I'm saying that the war and death that would occur would be good things, but that maybe they're necessary things for that region. I can't see that kind of regrouping happening peacefully.)

Stability? In some ways maybe so. But you then will have the danger of a bunch of ethnically-unified states with serious grudges against neighboring states composed of folks with differing ethnicities.

Also dangerous -- even if they are democracies.

S_A_M

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Captain
You are viewed as disloyal?!?

I could not imagine being as loyal to any party, even an imaginary party run solely by me, as you are to the Republicans.

He is viewed as disloyal to the administration, not necessarily the GOP. Some social conservatives probably think of him as a RINO.

Spanky has the temerity to publicly criticize the Maximum Leader and some of his policies and allies. This is not well-tolerated.

S_A_M

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
Like I said before, I am pretty sure that the administration thinks Iraq can remain intact and thinks it is in Americas interest that it does. How much pain they are willing to go through to insure that I don't know. I am also pretty sure the no matter what happens Kurds will eventually win.



No one in the administration will talk to me. I have been disloyal and consequently am persona non-grata. Sorry can't help.

No problem. Send $5 to Ken Mehlman. I did in 2003 on a whim and now they won't leave me alone. I'm sure it would work for anyone. Next letter I get I'm gonna tape two pennies to the card and send it back.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by bilmore
I'm guessing that the admin's lack of support for a Kurdish separation to date has more to do with keeping Turkey happy while we're there than with any long-term philosophy. Once we start seriously pulling out, I think we hear Rice speaking in terms of peoples' rights of self-determination.

I hope you are right but I am not hopeful. I told Dr. Rice that even though I supported Gulf War I, I was a little leary about it because I think Kuwait and the Arab part of Iraq will eventually unite. My problem wasn't the absorbtion of Kuwait by Iraq, it was that Saddam Hussein now had control of Kuwait so a psychotic dictator had more territory which was bad.

She told me she thought the future was in establishing the current states in the the middle east and Africa as stable nation states. She also told me that the idea of an Greater Arabia, was crazy, would never happen, and was clearly not in the US's or Isreal's interest. She said that the current lines should not be messed with and as long as there is prosperity the ethnic divisions would die down. I tried to point out that Belgium, which is prosperous, is on the verge of falling apart and same with Canada. And the ethnic divisioins are not nearly as strong in those countrys.

She still thought my idea of national boundaries having to reflect ethnic identities in order to have stability was pretty stupid and crazy.

Although I admit she is ten times smarter than me and infinitely more knowledgeable about the world, I am still arrogant enough to think she is wrong, and think her views if followed, could spell disaster.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Stability? In some ways maybe so. But you then will have the danger of a bunch of ethnically-unified states with serious grudges against neighboring states composed of folks with differing ethnicities.

Also dangerous -- even if they are democracies.

S_A_M

You just described Europe. Once the national boundaries are established and you have growth then they should get along. It is world wide depression that creates things like WWII. In my opinion the only way to get stability is ethnic nation states, democracy and prosperity (which requires free market systems).

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Stability? In some ways maybe so. But you then will have the danger of a bunch of ethnically-unified states with serious grudges against neighboring states composed of folks with differing ethnicities.

Also dangerous -- even if they are democracies.

S_A_M

True, but, absent ethnic cleansing, the only two possibilities in that region are that, or the mixed-bag unnatural "states" that can only be ruled through power or coercion. At least with side-by-side natural groupings, the internal structures of the states can be run democratically, or at least in a less authoritarian fashion.

Mussolini made the trains run on time, but, still, he was problematic.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
I tried to point out that Belgium, which is prosperous, is on the verge of falling apart and same with Canada. And the ethnic divisioins are not nearly as strong in those countrys.

Don't know about Belgium, but as for Canada, we had this discussion earlier in the year based on a survey that showed an appparently surprisingly high percentage of western Canada was ready to go it alone. I completed my own independent nonscientific survey of my western Canadian relatives, who told me that survey is meaningless. Basically, they said it is an expression of a basal level of grumbling about Ottawa, which has been going on in the prairies since there was a Canada. Canada most certainly is not falling apart.

As I said, the Belgians may be at each other's throats.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Don't know about Belgium, but as for Canada, we had this discussion earlier in the year based on a survey that showed an appparently surprisingly high percentage of western Canada was ready to go it alone. I completed my own independent nonscientific survey of my western Canadian relatives, who told me that survey is meaningless. Basically, they said it is an expression of a basal level of grumbling about Ottawa, which has been going on in the prairies since there was a Canada. Canada most certainly is not falling apart.

As I said, the Belgians may be at each other's throats.

Didn't the separist vote in Quebec get like 48%. And Quebec is like thirty percent Anglo?

And these two ethnic groups don't really have a long traditional ethnic tradition and culture (unless you count that they are part of France and England).

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky
Didn't the separist vote in Quebec get like 48%. And Quebec is like thirty percent Anglo?

And these two ethnic groups don't really have a long traditional ethnic tradition and culture (unless you count that they are part of France and England).

My people (the Irish) do very well at living with other cultures. We take the bars, and let the others have the rest. If you look around every major American (and Canadian) city, I think you'll see this is true.

The exception, of course, being Northern Ireland, but those bloody Scots seems to want the bars, too.