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

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Spanky
Can you predict the future accurately? If so, how come you are posting here and not reveling in the trillions of dollars you have made off the stock and real estate markets?

I think because his penis is hard. or maybe his anus is wet. one of them though.

[SlaveNoMore]

Shape Shifter
What threat did Iraq pose to the US?

Among other things, they were regularly shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone, necessitating our troops to remain in Saudi Arabia - and thus give Osama and his Islamist ilk the "Americans are disgracing our holy land" rationale for attacks on American soil.

[SlaveNoMore]

Spanky
Can you predict the future accurately?

Sadly, he cannot not, and thus, sadly, the five flights of stairs


PS - 6666 posts - I dig that.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Sadly, he cannot not, and thus, sadly, the five flights of stairs


PS - 6666 posts - I dig that.

On the plus side, my calves have never been in better shape.

[ltl/fb]

Originally posted by Spanky
Are you and I talkinng about the same report? I admit I only read the executive summary, but I thought the report said just the opposit.




Diplomacy. James Baker has already admitted the Iranians have and will probably continue to refuse to work with us (but he thought it was important to get their refusal out in the open).

Tactics: What significant change in tactics?

How can you agree with Slave's post, that the report (if he meant something else by the "wise men," I'm totally off base) didn't recommend any change, and then tell me that I'm wrong that the report didn't say we can pull out immediately?

I think the report, including the executive summary, said we could/should probably pull most US military out by mid-2008. I don't consider that immediate.

I think the diplomancy stuff in the report said more than "hey, get with Iran-- OK, that's it on our diplomacy recommendations!" And it may be that getting the Iran refusal out in the open would sway other allies toward us.

Tactics -- fuck if I know, but if the report has us withdrawing relatively soon, (a) that in itself is a change in tactics and (b) to get to that point, there'd have to be a change in the current tactics.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
But why do they go to such drastic ends to form such communities. And why do they want their brethern over the border to be part of such communities?

I suppose it's odd that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage in North Dakota feel that (e.g.) Spanish-speaking Floridians of Cuban descent are a part of their national community but that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage a few miles away in Sasketchewan are not.

I don't deny the phenomenom. I'm just saying it works in different ways.

Austria was conquered and forcibly separated. Its separation was done at gun point.

So was the marriage. And you don't see a lot of agitation for Austria to reunite with Germany.

It is the exception not the rule. And Europe a very small exception. For every Swizerland there are ten Portugals.

I know what you mean, but this sentence is very funny.

But every time the borders change they reflect ethnolinquistic lines more and more.

Really? You've said this, but I'm not seeing it. The collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't count, it seems to me, since the various SSRs were nominally separate countries. (The EU runs the other way.) Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, I grant you. But borders don't change all that often.

But why did this happen in Europe and not elsewhere?

It happened elsewhere, but in Europe first. Was it the French Revolution? The printing press? I think Benedict Anderson's book has an argument about this, but I can't remember.

As you say the lines of Africa, the Middle East and SouthEast Asia were drawn by colonial empire. Making them unnatural in my mind. In Subsaharan Africa, the ethnic nations (the tribes) are so small that becoming a nation is not really practical. But still, the tribes in each country fight with eachother. But in the Middle East and Central Asia the ethnic groups are much bigger, but where the colonial lines are drawn, the lines are not natural and will move towards the natual borders, ethnolinquistic borders.

Maybe so, but those lines take on a life of their own. Some people start to think they define communities. Politicians draw their power from them. And so on. It's been a while now in Africa, and it's not like you see that many borders being redrawn.

OK. Massive ethnic movements only happened after WWII. And these were mainly people were moved by Stalin. He moved them because he understood what I have been saying all a long. You can draw borders however you want but if they are not drawn along ethnolinguistic lines they are not stable borders. Stalin could have left the Germans in Pomerani and Silesia, and drawn the Polish border around them, but he realized that would create an unstable country. Pomerania and Silesia would push to rejoin Germany and leave Poland after the occupation was over. So Stalin ethnically cleansed those two areas and pushed all the Germans into what is present day Germany. 2.5 million people were forced at gun point to leae their homes and move hundred of miles into Germany. He did the same thing with Konigsberg (East Prussia). He knew if he left the Germans there they would want to rejoing Germany so he expelled them and pushed them into Germany. He replaced the Germans with ethnic Russians. What is ironic is that Kongisberg (now kalingrad) has put out feelers about rejoining Germany, but Germany does not want them because they are not ethnic Germans (if they were German you can bet your bottom dollar that they would want them back). He realized in order to move political boundaries and to make them stable, he had to move ethnolinguistic boundaries. He did the same thing with the Germans in Sudentenland. He moved all them all out of what became Czecholosovakia because he knew if he let them stay they would try and rejoin Germany again. At the end of the war, Austria was occupied. Part of the treaty that allowed the occupation of Austia to end was a promise that Austria would never rejoin Germany. The Allies were very worried Austria would want to rejoin Germany so they made sure it would never happen.

While that kind of ethnic cleansing seems to be the 20th century's gift to world history, mass movements of peoples go way back (e.g., Romans) and have continued (e.g., the colonization of North America, the slave trade, etc.).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
But, there is an odd kind of stability that hangs over the core states of Europe for several centuries (right after the Reformation on), and it may be that stability that is unusual and gave birth to nationalism of the sort that prevails in the West today.

Those states were around for a long time before they began to conceive of themselves as nations.

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
We'll see what emerges, but I am not convinced that nationalism per se is the end game for every region of the earth.

Speaking of odd, it seems odd to me that the idea of a "nation" has been picked up around the world, as the template for every state. E.g., Nepal was a constitutional monarchy until just now, but it seems to have grafted Western conceptions of nationhood onto its traditional form of government.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You're still a fucking crazy.

Presumably you mean this in an endearing way.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Who else? The Belgians? The French?

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

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Presumably you mean this in an endearing way.

As Colin did about Rummy, yes.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I suppose it's odd that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage in North Dakota feel that (e.g.) Spanish-speaking Floridians of Cuban descent are a part of their national community but that white Lutherans of Scandanavian heritage a few miles away in Sasketchewan are not.

I don't deny the phenomenom. I'm just saying it works in different ways.

But you are the only one that is disuputing that is omnipresent in Europe. Yes there are exceptions. Some Italians do live in England but that doesn't mean that England and Italy are divided ethno linguisticaly. In Europe, as I have said, 95 percent of the people in Europe live in a country that has the same name as the language that is their native tongue (or have the samne native language as 97% of the people that live in the same political boundaries as they do.) And a lot of people died and it took incredible effort and sacrifice to make the borders the way they are. Yet you seem to be implying that this force isn't pervasive. An exception (or many exceptions) does not disprove this rule.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Really? You've said this, but I'm not seeing it. The collapse of the Soviet Union doesn't count, it seems to me, since the various SSRs were nominally separate countries. (The EU runs the other way.) Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia, I grant you. But borders don't change all that often.

When have borders changed in Europe recently where they didn't conform more to ethnolinguistic borders? Nine out of ten of border changes in this century have been towards more consistent political borders with ethnolinguistic borders. The last border changes you cite were some of the only mulitethnic countries left. In other words, some of the only borders that didn't mirror ethnolinguistic lines. Most every other country was already divided by ethnolingquistic lines. After Czechoslavkia and Yugoslavia fell apart that just leaves Belgium and Swizerland as multiethnic, and Austria as the only country that has resisted irrdentism. But Austria had to be separated and its separation built into a treaty. And Belgium may still yet fall apart.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop So was the marriage. And you don't see a lot of agitation for Austria to reunite with Germany.

Considering what Germany did during WWII, you don't think the Austrians have been at pains to separate themselves from Germany? They may like the idea of a united uniting with their coethnic bretheren but until the Nazi memory is long gone, they are not going to bring it up.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
It's been a while now in Africa, and it's not like you see that many borders being redrawn.

There are thousands of ethnolinguistic groups in Subsaharan africa. If it was to divide along ethnolinquistic lines almost every country would have to collapse into at least ten states. Nigeria into like 200.

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
While that kind of ethnic cleansing seems to be the 20th century's gift to world history, mass movements of peoples go way back (e.g., Romans) and have continued (e.g., the colonization of North America, the slave trade, etc.).

Ethnic cleansing is the ultimate expression of the force I am talking about. These people that are engaged in ethnic cleansing are convinced that ethnolinguistic borders are the only ones that count and that can be counted on. In other words, a political boundary is only valid if it copies an ethnolinguistic border exactly. If you want a country to claim an area, the only way to secure that area is fill it with people that have the same native language as the name of the state, and expel anyone that doesn't have that same native language.

[Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)]

Ty, were you making this point:

Study shows newspapers spin to sell papers

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Among other things, they were regularly shooting at our planes in the no-fly zone.

Had we figured out how to fly our cities over Iraq, they might have shot and missed those as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Ty, were you making this point:

Study shows newspapers spin to sell papers

"Spinning," or telling their customers what they want to hear. (That's FOX's business model, right?) But that's interesting stuff.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
But you are the only one that is disuputing that is omnipresent in Europe. Yes there are exceptions. Some Italians do live in England but that doesn't mean that England and Italy are divided ethno linguisticaly. In Europe, as I have said, 95 percent of the people in Europe live in a country that has the same name as the language that is their native tongue (or have the samne native language as 97% of the people that live in the same political boundaries as they do.) And a lot of people died and it took incredible effort and sacrifice to make the borders the way they are. Yet you seem to be implying that this force isn't pervasive. An exception (or many exceptions) does not disprove this rule.

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.

Nine out of ten of border changes in this century have been towards more consistent political borders with ethnolinguistic borders.

Cite?

Considering what Germany did during WWII, you don't think the Austrians have been at pains to separate themselves from Germany? They may like the idea of a united uniting with their coethnic bretheren but until the Nazi memory is long gone, they are not going to bring it up.

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

There are thousands of ethnolinguistic groups in Subsaharan africa. If it was to divide along ethnolinquistic lines almost every country would have to collapse into at least ten states. Nigeria into like 200.

Maybe we need to get them all watching American TV. They'll all sound like they're from Ohio.