A Forum for Grinches and Ho-Ho-Hoes

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
That's good news. I wonder why there was no damage there. Less of a wave? Better building codes? Odd, that.

http://ioc.unesco.org/itsu/templates.../animation.gif

don't know where it is exactly, and don't know if this is accurate, and don't know if blue or red is more severe but here's an animation.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Maybe gravity will make it flow down to Iran or Iraq. Far-fetched, but equally plausible.

If it wasn't plausible, why would Putin be concerned?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
If it wasn't plausible, why would Putin be concerned?

Uh, I think Putin was more concerned about having dominance over Ukraine because it furthered notions of Russian empire than being objectively worried about opposition candidates arising in Moscow.

[Not Bob]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Uh, I think Putin was more concerned about having dominance over Ukraine because it furthered notions of Russian empire than being objectively worried about opposition candidates arising in Moscow.

Plus, the Ukraine (sorry, can't get used to dropping the "the" -- same with the Sudan) has nukes, so the Man Whose Soul Our President Has Seen very much wants a friendly face in Kiev.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Uh, I think Putin was more concerned about having dominance over Ukraine because it furthered notions of Russian empire than being objectively worried about opposition candidates arising in Moscow.

That's a very small part of it. The real story is oil (surprise, surprise), but I also think the Russian government fears the spread of real democracy.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
The real story is oil (surprise, surprise)....

Que?

eta: Are you alluding to the fact that Ukraine is the 48th largest oil producing nation, behind Peru and ahead of Germany?

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
Que?

eta: Are you alluding to the fact that Ukraine is the 48th largest oil producing nation, behind Peru and ahead of Germany?

Possibly. Or, possibly he means that Ukraine is dependent on oil and other resources from Russia, and that Russia has serious geopolitical problems with any thought of Ukraine (for centuries being beholden to Russia) leaving the Russian empire and becoming Western-oriented.

link

• To Ukraine, its ties with the U.S. are its last and best guarantee of security and sovereignty. For centuries, Ukraine has been integral to Russia's empires, both Soviet and Czarist. To many, if not most, Russians, the notion of an independent Ukraine remains a rather alien concept at best. Thus, this country's short history of independence has been shadowed by fears that Russia would eventually reassert control. And, in fact, while official Russian attitudes toward Ukraine have mellowed from the days when Russian officials dismissed Ukraine's independence as "transitional," Moscow retains its goal of greater integration among all the former Soviet states and looks askance at its neighbors' development of closer ties with the United States and the West, which Russia increasingly sees as threatening. In Ukraine's case, this is particularly significant. Of all of the post-Soviet states, it has been most active in courting U.S. friendship.
  
  It is in part to avoid angering Russia that the United States (and NATO and its other members) has steered clear of granting Ukraine any firm security commitments. Instead, the suggestion of alignment was proffered through NATO's Partnership for Peace (PFP) program and continuing bilateral military-to-military ties. As a result, Ukraine has little to rely on other than the hope that NATO and/or the United States will protect it if Russia makes a hostile move. As long as Moscow maintains its official policy of supporting Ukrainian sovereignty, of course, this is not a problem. But a hardening of Russia's stance towards Ukraine could set off a dangerous chain reaction. A threatened Ukraine would have little choice but to ask for Western assistance. This would not only anger Russia, exacerbating the situation, but would force an unwelcome choice for Brussels and Washington. For the United States and NATO, giving Ukraine the support it desires would invite conflict with Russia. But failing to do so would not only mean the end of Ukraine's independence, but would also send a frightening message to all of their other "Partners" and friends about the credibility of that friendship.
  
  Certainly the best outcome for all concerned is to prevent such an eventuality by taking steps to ensure that Ukraine's sovereignty is guaranteed by more than a vague hope of Western support. But Russia's ability to pressure Ukraine effectively is increasing, for in recent months Russia has begun to shift the power balance between the two states in the single most important sector of their interaction: energy imports and exports.
  
  Ukraine, like most other post-Soviet states, remains highly dependent on Russia for its energy. This includes the vast majority of its natural gas, of which Ukraine is one of the world's largest consumers, and its oil. Furthermore, Ukraine's nuclear sector is dependent on Russia both for provision of fuel rods for its nuclear power plants and for reprocessing of waste.
  
  Russia has repeatedly used the energy advantage to pressure its neighbors toward greater alignment. But despite its dependence on Russian energy and its huge debt to Moscow (estimated at between $740 million and $2.8 billion), Ukraine, unlike other post-Soviet states, has been able to resist Russia's efforts to transform energy dependence into policy influence. Despite Russia's steps to raise tariffs, force Ukraine to swap debt for equity, and occasionally cut off fuel entirely, Kyiv's policy has over time become more, not less, Western in orientation.

But really, this is all about the spread of democracy to Moscow.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Possibly. Or, possibly he means that Ukraine is dependent on oil and other resources from Russia

This is what I meant. I also thought I read that Ukraine was key to Russia's oil distribution (not just consumption), but I may have that wrong.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
This is what I meant. I also thought I read that Ukraine was key to Russia's oil distribution (not just consumption), but I may have that wrong.

If Ukraine is dependant on Russian oil, why does it make a difference whom they elect?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Gattigap
[spree: WaPo article, suggesting that tsunamis aren't so much immense waves as drastic and abrupt increases (and decreases) in water levels, which inundate everything.

That's why they're also called tidal waves. Imagine a tide about 200-1000 feet thick, rising forty feet. It's not like a wave crashes over everything - it's like the tide suddenly rises that much. Far, far worse, because of the volumetric increase.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
If Ukraine is dependant on Russian oil, why does it make a difference whom they elect?

As I understand it, it is not so much U being dependent on Russian oil, as Russia's oil exports being dependent on U purchases. Sort of a captive purchaser situation.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Tyrone Slothrop
I think whether our project there succeeds or fails will depend on a lot more than whether everyone gets a chance to vote. They voted under Hussein, too.

That's a cruel denigration of the word "vote".

You really seem to be missing the point, so let me try again. Suppose a world in which, in the 2006 election in Maine, only five people show up to vote for Maine's two congressional representatives. Maine still gets its two seats, because under our system, the seats are apportioned on the basis of population.

In the Iraqi election to be held next month, if only five people show up to vote in one of the Sunni provinces, they will be unrepresented, in essence and in fact, because the number of seats they get in the parliament (or whatever it's going to be called) will be proportionate to their share of the total votes case, not to their province's share of the population.

So this is not about "counting votes that are not cast."

Surprisingly, I do get your point. I think we're just doing the ships passing thing because of a disconnect in viewpoints.

Maybe I'm too optimistic, but I see the Iraqi society as being not that different than ours. There are two (or maybe three, depending on how you count) religions there. Each religion has some small share of radical nutjobs, who will freely give others' lives for their gawd. But, the mass of people are in the middle, basically believing, but certainly not about to crash planes into buildings or pull tripwires on vests just because of some raisins. (sp?). They yearn for some explanations of the unknowables, and they want a structure that tells them that, by sticking to a defined morality, they're not going to handicap themselves, because others will stick to it, too, but that's really all they're looking to their religion for, not unlike most people here.

They've had - what? - generations of strife. They've had a taste of prosperity, and also a taste of hell, through the auspices of SH. Mussolini made the trains run on time, with some obvious drawbacks. So, too, did SH. So, they know what a functioning infrasrtucture can bring them, quality-of-life-wise, and they want to take part in a society that offers them that, along with some control and freedom. They want to feed their families, send their kids to school, and be a part of the world. They want a Coke.

So, I think that the bulk of the society - Kurd, Shia, and Sunni - will find it more important to work to form a workable group that can build a healthy society, and be prosperous, and join the rest of us, than to fight for their tribal or sectarian advantage.

Obviously, if the Shia majority elects a government that governs to the clear advantage of Shia society, this won't work. But, I'm thinking that what will prevail will be a religion-neutral group, one that governs for Iraqis, and not some segment of Iraqis. If that happens - even if the Sunni's lose, but then see that the government treats them fairly, shia or sunni or whatever - then and only then can they form an honest-to-gosh cohesive civil society.

I think the chances of this happening are better than even. I also think this would be the greatest leap forward the entire middle east could possibly take at this point - leading to pressure all over the region for a similar result, starting with Iran, and maybe Syria.

If you understand my optimism for this, and if you understand that I think that right now - today - is the optimal time for this attempt - then you will understand why I think it so vital for the entire world that we make the attempt that we're making now, painful or not, and why I think that a Kerry win would have been so bad for the entire world.

Might even help you understand why I like Rummy.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by bilmore
So, I think that the bulk of the society - Kurd, Shia, and Sunni - will find it more important to work to form a workable group that can build a healthy society, and be prosperous, and join the rest of us, than to fight for their tribal or sectarian advantage.

2. And say the sunnis boycott, they will learn that next election they should show up. The US born agains boycotted in 2000, then realized they should show up in 2004. hell, our first election someone told GW he should just cancel and declare himself King.

Ty. The tanks aren't bogged down outside Baghdad. Give it some time.

[dtb]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Good question. I imagine the only answer is to try and get everyone on a boat, if possible.

[spree: WaPo article, suggesting that tsunamis aren't so much immense waves as drastic and abrupt increases (and decreases) in water levels, which inundate everything. The anecdotal story suggests that being afloat on something seaworthy, while no guarantee for survival, probably helps your odds.]

I heard this too (the part about your being safer if you're in the water). Someone I know was in Thailand on vacation, and was on a boat. She and her husband survived by hanging onto the boat and riding it out.

Holy crap.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by dtb
I heard this too (the part about your being safer if you're in the water). Someone I know was in Thailand on vacation, and was on a boat. She and her husband survived by hanging onto the boat and riding it out.

Holy crap.

do you have a link to a newspaper story about them?