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

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What rhymes with Moldava?

Cold Guava.

Mmmm.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Closer to home, what are you going to do with Quebec? And will the Southeastern United States join Mexico? Will Miami and Cuba unite?

I forgot about Quebec. Quebec splits off. Besides that Americans are much harder to predict because we are all mutts and citizens of the USA are really into a creed much more that into our ethnicity. The USA is so intertwined with our system of government, where most places the system of government has nothing do with their identity.

I would like to see the Americas form something similar to the EEC (not EU).

The map I described above I drew my first year of lawschool when I was procrastinating studying for my Civil Procdure exam (1989). It was open book and every one was builing these huge reference tomes from scratch. I created this map. You would be amazed how much the world has moved towards that map since I drew it. When I drew it it was hard to find maps that showed the turkish states of the Soviet union, let along turkish and other ethnic republics in Russia.

Since I drew that map the Soviet Union split up, Germany recombined, Yugolsavia split up, Czechoslovakia split up, Scotland has gotten their own parliament, Chechnya has rebelled from Russia, Quebec has come close to splitting off many times, the rebellions in East Turkestan have increased, it looks like Kozovo is going to split off, Yemen combined, Kurdistan is getting offly close to independence in Iraq etc.

The set back for the map have been in Arabia. The UAR never made it and Kuwait was split off from Iraq. But I think the main reason why Arabia has not formed is that Isreal understand that that would be their worst nightmare. They have done everything in their power to prevent it. I also expected China to follow apart soon after the Soviet Union, and I thought Azerbaijanis in Iran would fight harder to be joined to Azerbaijan.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Realizing that we couldn't go it alone, that we needed to win international support for it to be successful. And by international support, I mean more than Micronesia and Tonga.

How would that have that helped? It could have meant more troops but we could have also provided more troops. And besides these troops, outside of the British, were pretty much useless in Gulf War I. The only countries that didn't support us that supported us in Gulf War I were Germany, France and Syria. Where they a lot of help in Gulf War I? Isn't help from France kind of like having a knitting convention on your side?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
If this is true, and the generals felt they couldn't ask for more troops that was a major screw up. But that is the only screw up I can see. And if that was the screw up these Mandarins should have asked for more troops.

What else have the recommended that if it happend a while ago would have made any difference?

Franks asked for 500,000. He got 150,000. It was a question of Powell doctrine versus Rumsfeld doctrine - a doctrine developed by Generals versus one developed by folks who never had a fight outside a schoolyard.

Franks apparently went back to the well repeatedly on this issue, and had Powell's support.

The thing is, the only way you get to 500,000 is by building a major international coalition with support from a number of countries that can contribute 50-100,000 troops each. This means that applying the Powell doctrine effectively meant not invading Iraq yet, until diplomatic channels did a lot more work.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by nononono
O.N.A.N.!!

He's a hero of mine, too, but isn't this better for the FB?

S_A_M

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
I forgot about Quebec. Quebec splits off. Besides that Americans are much harder to predict because we are all mutts and citizens of the USA are really into a creed much more that into our ethnicity. The USA is so intertwined with our system of government, where most places the system of government has nothing do with their identity.

I would like to see the Americas form something similar to the EEC (not EU).

The map I described above I drew my first year of lawschool when I was procrastinating studying for my Civil Procdure exam (1989). It was open book and every one was builing these huge reference tomes from scratch. I created this map. You would be amazed how much the world has moved towards that map since I drew it. When I drew it it was hard to find maps that showed the turkish states of the Soviet union, let along turkish and other ethnic republics in Russia.

Since I drew that map the Soviet Union split up, Germany recombined, Yugolsavia split up, Czechoslovakia split up, Scotland has gotten their own parliament, Chechnya has rebelled from Russia, Quebec has come close to splitting off many times, the rebellions in East Turkestan have increased, it looks like Kozovo is going to split off, Yemen combined, Kurdistan is getting offly close to independence in Iraq etc.

The set back for the map have been in Arabia. The UAR never made it and Kuwait was split off from Iraq. But I think the main reason why Arabia has not formed is that Isreal understand that that would be their worst nightmare. They have done everything in their power to prevent it. I also expected China to follow apart soon after the Soviet Union, and I thought Azerbaijanis in Iran would fight harder to be joined to Azerbaijan.

Emergent nationalism is an important trend that is going to influence a lot of borders over the next 50 years. BUT, it's not the only trend and in every case there are forces holding the current entities together. I see all the forces you're looking at, but think only some will prevail. And I think Europe and North America are moving past nationalism in many ways.

[Secret_Agent_Man]

Originally posted by Spanky
If you don't like it - put me on ignore. It is just not that difficult.

:eek2: :bs: :shrug:

S_A_M

[nononono]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
He's a hero of mine, too, but isn't this better for the FB?

S_A_M

Arguably. But it seemed to fit Spanky's prognostcations. Besides, when I posted on the FB earlier today you ignored me completely and gave credit to Slave for my Lohan "news." ::sniff::

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Franks asked for 500,000. He got 150,000. It was a question of Powell doctrine versus Rumsfeld doctrine - a doctrine developed by Generals versus one developed by folks who never had a fight outside a schoolyard.

Franks apparently went back to the well repeatedly on this issue, and had Powell's support.

The thing is, the only way you get to 500,000 is by building a major international coalition with support from a number of countries that can contribute 50-100,000 troops each. This means that applying the Powell doctrine effectively meant not invading Iraq yet, until diplomatic channels did a lot more work.

How many soliders did we use in Gulf War I.

As I said, these countries don't even have armies. And when they do send them they are useless. In Afghanistan most NATO countries won't let their troops go to the south because it is too dangerous.

If the number of troops was the mistake, what would be wrong with bulding up our troop strenght to 500,000 in Iraq now? Leave a skeleton crew every where in the world (including the United States) except for Korea and Afghanistan?

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
If the number of troops was the mistake, what would be wrong with bulding up our troop strenght to 500,000 in Iraq now? Leave a skeleton crew every where in the world (including the United States) except for Korea and Afghanistan?

BIG mistake. That's just what the Canadians are waiting for. The hoards will sweep down from the North and crush us against that 700 mile fence that stops our retreat south.

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky


In Europe

11) Scotland will split off (thanks James Bond)

12) Ireland will reunite

13) The United Kingdom will be like Yugoslavia when it came down to just Serbia and Macedonia. It will hold onto the name but eventually even Wales will split off just leaving England and the United Kingdom will go the way of Yugoslavia.

14) Belgium will Split up.

All of the above is probably true, but irrelevant. The split off of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland will be about as momentus as the split off of Maine from the Commonwealth of Massachusettes Bay, and probably similarly motivated (to get greater influence in the EU/Federal level to offset the entrance of some other country(s)/states. Northern Ireland will split off but not actually merge with the Republic until a subsequent (temporary) UK monetary crises suddenly makes Ireland's Euro look really appealing to the locals, who will finally pull their collective head out of their asses and realize that the Protestants in the Republic are doing much better than they.

Ditto for Belgium, and for the same reason (to give more input to northern europe to counter the entry of an eastern european state).

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
BIG mistake. That's just what the Canadians are waiting for. The hoards will sweep down from the North and crush us against that 700 mile fence that stops our retreat south.

Best. Post. of. the. day.

For some reason I pictured that with South Park characters in a South Park cartoon setting.

Where have you been? I don't remember giving you permission to leave the board

[Spanky]

Originally posted by baltassoc
who will finally pull their collective head out of their asses and realize that the Protestants in the Republic are doing much better than they.

I agree with all of that except for this blurb. Don't you mean Catholics? For many years northern Ireland was better of economically than the south but now the south is booming. If the south has not surpassed the north, isn't it getting close? So even without a pound monetary crisis isn't souther Ireland looking better and better (the abortion and contraception bans aside).

[baltassoc]

Originally posted by Spanky
I agree with all of that except for this blurb. Don't you mean Catholics? For many years northern Ireland was better of economically than the south but now the south is booming. If the south has not surpassed the north, isn't it getting close? So even without a pound monetary crisis isn't souther Ireland looking better and better (the abortion and contraception bans aside).

Much of the reason that the protestants in the north fear becoming part of the repulic is because they are afraid that the catholics will seek revenge upon them as new minorities. But the protestants in the republic (who dominated the politics and economics of the southern counties before independence) remained in much the same social position they did prior to the revolt. Trinity and Christchurch are still Anglican, not Catholic. The point I was alluding too is that at some point enough protestant leaders in the north are going to remind tehmselves/discover that maybe its not so bad to be a protestant in the republic. This will occur about the same time that an economic crisis hits the UK but not Ireland.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by baltassoc
... who will finally pull their collective head out of their asses and realize that the Protestants in the Republic are doing much better than they.

The Catholics make the good beer. How would the Protestants be doing better?