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

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
I find that astonishing. And its not like Arabic is some obsure language. It is spoken from Morocco to Yemen to Syria, and since you are not supposed to translate the Koran, among the elite it is spoken all over the Muslim world. Unlike other Muslilms who endeavor to learn Arabic so they can read the Koran, since they already can read the Koran many Arabs don't endeavor to learn other languages.

So if you friend Rory didn't speak Arabic what credentials did he have to inspire them to put him in charge?

Read the book.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And so after familiarizing yourself on the nuances of Middle East, learning Pashto, Hazari, Dari, Arabic and Kurdish (Farsi might come in handy as well) during your time pimping out underage models in Tokyo, your take would be?

OK. Here is a question I posted on the board earlier, and no one had an answer then, but maybe now that we have GGG's expertise on Iraq and Afghanistan he can enlighten us. I don't know why he didn't speak up before when I brought this up, but clearly he read my posts and concluded I had my facts wrong (demonstrating my clear ignorance of the subject) so maybe this time he can explain what I have wrong. Here are the facts as I understand them:

1) Afghanistan is split up into many different ethnic groups. You have the Turkish speakers, the Persian speakers, the Pashto and the Baluchis. As I pointed out earlier, the Turkish speakers and the Persian speakers are broken up into to many sub groups themselves.

2) All these ethnic groups were fighting each other prior to the Taliban takeover. Each one of these groups formed their own "mujahadeen group" to fight the Soviets. Even before the Soviets fell they all turned on each other. The Taliban, who came from the Pashto area, eventually started to dominate the war, so all the other warring factions who were fighting each other banded up into the Northern Alliance (it was called this because mainly the Turkish speaking areas in the north were the only areas they controlled) once it was clear the Taliban were getting the upper hand.

3) These groups even prior to the Soviet invasion have had a long history of fighting each other and being engaged in civil wars. Many experts say that Afghanistan has truly never been united.

4) The boundaries of Afghanistan are randomly drawn over ethnic lines. The North Western territories of Pakistan (the tribal areas including Waziristan) are filled with Pashto and they are so independent Pakistan really does not control them. The Pashto on both sides of the Khyber Pass has for years talked about forming a united Pashtunistan. The South Western state of Pakistan is called Baluchistan, the South Eastern state of Iran is called Baluchistan and Southern Afghanistan is full of Baluchis. There has also been for years a movement for a united Baluchistan. For the Turks in the North West, there are Turcoman that live right on the Turkmenistan border and Uzbeks that live right on the Uzbek border. There have also been calls for these people to unite with their ethnic homelands, and there have also been calls for a united Turkistan. The Tadjiks in Northeastern Afghanistan live right on the border with Tajikistan. There have been calls for a united Tajikistan.

(As a side note, like I pointed out before, the weird thing is there has never been a call for uniting all the Persians. The Persian language runs all the way through Persia, right through the middle of Afghanistan (between the Pashto and the Turks) and right up into Tajikistan, but I have never heard of a call for a united "greater Persia". For every other ethic group in the middle east, from the Turks, to the Arabs, the Kurds etc they have all yearned for a united homeland except for the Persians. Maybe GGG can also explain the reason for this strange circumstance also).

5) In Iraq there are only two ethnic groups. The Kurds and the Arabs. The Arabs are divided by religion but so are most of the ethnic groups in Afghanistan.

6) There has been no long history of civil wars in Mesopotamia between the Shiites and the Sunnis for at least a hundred years. The Shiites did rise up after Gulf War One, but most experts concluded this was a rise up against Saddam, not against the Sunnis in general. Because of recent events this original conclusion by the "experts" is being reexamined.

7) During the Iran-Iraq war the Iranians called upon the Iraqi Shiites (Iran is 99% Shiite) to rise up against Saddam to support their fellow Shiites. This did not happen. The Shiites fought just as fiercely for Iraq against their fellow Shiites as the Sunni Iraqis did.

8) There is much intermarriage and commingling between Sunni and Shiite Arabs in Iraq. There are mixed neighborhoods and many mixed families. Afghanistan is very strictly divided between ethnic groups and there is not a lot of intermarriage between ethnic groups. It would be very easy to chop up Afghanistan along major ethnic lines; it would be really hard to do so in Iraq.

9) Under Saddam's regime, there were many different ethnic groups in his government. The prime minister, the number two guy and Saddam's chosen successor, was Tariq Assis. Tariq is a member of the Caldean church (Babylonia See) which in the last couple hundred of years has recognized the suzerainty of the Pope but still has their own Patriarch and has their rights in Assyrian, not Latin. There were also many Shiites and Assyrians in the Saddam's government. The Baath party was originally an Arab nationalist party that was socialist and secular. The main point of the party was to united all Arabs and suppress religions. So although you can claim more Sunnis benefited from Saddam's regime, it clearly wasn't a straight Sunni regime. And many Sunnis suffered a great deal under Saddam.

10) The Kurds for years have been calling for their own homeland and for a United Kurdistan. But so far there has not been much violence between the Kurds and other Arabs, and the Kurds have not demanded independence.

So the sixty four thousand dollar question is: why hasn't Afghanistan fallen apart? Why isn't it splintering apart like a wooden ship against a reef? Why is Iraq having 'ethnic' trouble and not Afghanistan? Once we invaded Afghanistan I was convinced Afghanistan would split into at least four parts (Pashto, Persian, Turkish and Baluchi - if not more). Many experts reached the same conclusion. But Afghanistan has really been a war mainly against the Taliban, with many Pashto siding with the government against their fellow ethnic brethren.

Why has the violence in Iraq been between the Shiites and Sunnis of the same ethnic group, when they have never had a civil war before, and they just overthrew a secular Arab nationalist government?

What gives?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
You are an annoying little runt, aren't you?

Dude, it was your quiz I was reacting to, and the whole idea of a hypothetical on Iraq and Afghanistan changing fundamental facts about the countries. "Assume Iraq is something it is not..." That is essentially how we got in the war. By a lot of folks assuming away the history of the places.

As to my credentials on the Middle East, judge me based on what I post here, as I do you. You may discover there are a few nuggets I've picked up here and there that are mildly interesting.

Have you judged my knowledge of Iraq and Afghanistan by what I have posted here, or have you assumed you know what I know about these two countries based on your preconceived notions about people who support the war?

Come on - be honest. You were inferring that I had demonstrated a lack of knowledge on this board about both Afghanistan and Pakistan and it was this ignorance that let me support the Iraq invasion, and if I just learned more about the countries I would not hold the position I do.

Fundamental Facts? You don't think that Saddam Hussein would have pulled off 9-11 if he could have? If he was willing to try and assassinate our former President, you don't think he would have hit us if he could?

I don't think it is too far fetched to imagine a scenario where Al Queda did not pull of 9-11, Saddam figured out a way to unleash a WMD in the US (a dirty bomb, saran in the water supply etc.). It is also possible that the US could have gotten suspicious that the Taliban got their hands on WMD. Bought if from the Russian mafia etc.

So without changing anything fundamentally about either country it is perfectly reasonable to imagine a situation where Saddam had pulled off something similar to 9-11, The Taliban and Al Qaeda were not able to hit us, and the US government had erroneous suspicions that the Taliban had gotten their hands on a WMD.

I think it would be really interesting to see if in such a scenario would the same people that supported the war in Afghanistan, but not the war in Iraq, support the opposite in a reverse situation? And in addition, would the people who supported the Iraq war until they found out there was no WMD, also have supported a war against Afghanistan in a similar situation, but then decided it was a mistake when no WMDs were found.

I think answering this would really show what people think about these wars and the justifications for war in general. It would also show if people were consistent in their thoughts. Don't you agree?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
Read the book.

If I buy it through the link you posted will the board get credit?

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
Not sure if I qualify as "anti-Iraq war" because I gave qualfied support pre-invasion, but I'll try to answer:

1(a) Hell Yes.
1(b) Yes, but we should have then had a decent plan in place with sufficient forces to maintain order and have a chance to keep it from happening (at least while we're there).

2(a) I'd say yes because of the known intimate association between the Taliban and al Qaeda. You can't assume that away.

(b) Not necessarily, and the consequences of a screw-up in Afghanistan, while serious, are far less severe for us than the potential consequences of a screw-up in Iraq.


S_A_M

1) So you don't think Saddam trying to hit a former president was enough of a reason to invade Iraq? How many American citizens would he have to have killed to justify a US invasion?

2) So prior to 9-11 you would have supported an invasion of Afghanistan if we suspected they had WMDs? What if we didn't suspect they had WMDs and they had not pulled of 9-11. Would you have supported an invasion?

3) Why do you think a screw up in Iraq would be so much worse than a screw up in Afghanistan. Couldn't have afghanistan turned into a bloody nightmare just like people claim Iraq is. Look what happened to the Russians when they got involved in an Afghan civil war. It really turned out awful for them, but turned out pretty OK for us. The only difference is they put in more troops than we did, and they supported a sitting government where we supported rebels.

[Replaced_Texan]

Originally posted by Spanky
If I buy it through the link you posted will the board get credit?

We're more likely to get credit through the link on the sidebar on the left.

I think that you'd like Rory. He's a good bloke.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
A better argument is that the 7th century schism in Islam succession that led to separate Shia and Sunni tribes brought us the "Civil War"

That is, if there actually was a civil war going on.

From Powerline

This quote was the best part of that article. The most accurate succinct description ( in my opinion ) of what is happening politically in this country and Iraq

"So, for those reasons, I would not call what is going on in Iraq a civil war. It seems pretty clear, though, that the present controversy is not the result of any good-faith effort to apply historical norms to the conflict in Iraq, but rather is part of the effort to stampede this country into defeat for partisan political purposes."

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky

So the sixty four thousand dollar question is: why hasn't Afghanistan fallen apart? Why isn't it splintering apart like a wooden ship against a reef? Why is Iraq having 'ethnic' trouble and not Afghanistan? Once we invaded Afghanistan I was convinced Afghanistan would split into at least four parts (Pashto, Persian, Turkish and Baluchi - if not more). Many experts reached the same conclusion. But Afghanistan has really been a war mainly against the Taliban, with many Pashto siding with the government against their fellow ethnic brethren.

This is an interesting question, and I'll give you one very good reason - there was an indigenous movement working against the Taliban that could take on governing after they liberated the country. There clearly are still tensions in Afghanistan, but the fact that the Northern Alliance had already been working together (for the most part), for many of them over several decades, has much to do with it. I'm sure there are other reasons.

To understand the tensions in Iraq, focus on its very long history as a border region, constantly fought over between Turks, Arabs and Persians. What do you mean never a civil war? There's more than a millenium of watching the country go back and forth between rival powers with local rulers mediating the disputes and building their own bases. In more recent times, the pendulum has swung toward a deepening of the religious disputes at the same time the Kurds have strengthened themselves - to a great degree with our help. Over the last thirty years, Iraq has been subject to a continual increasing of the tensions. And, over the last thirty years, the power bases have become increasingly local and decentralized, with no alternative national power structure having been built when we removed Saddam.

There's a few notions. Remember, the biggest difference between the two situations is that we didn't put boots on the ground in Afghanistan until the Taliban were already disintigrating, where there was insubstantial armed opposition, outside of the Kurds, to Saddam when we invaded full force.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by Spanky
This quote was the best part of that article. The most accurate succinct description ( in my opinion ) of what is happening politically in this country and Iraq

"So, for those reasons, I would not call what is going on in Iraq a civil war. It seems pretty clear, though, that the present controversy is not the result of any good-faith effort to apply historical norms to the conflict in Iraq, but rather is part of the effort to stampede this country into defeat for partisan political purposes."

so how many middle eastern languages does the author speak?

[Hank Chinaski]

I was thinking the 2000 election changed how we feel about the power of our vote.

I knew about the electoral college, and I saw the networks knock off state by state results in past elections, but still I could look at the popular total vote and see my vote, and see who was "winning."

then 2000, that gets turned on it's head. it was such an odd moment that at least one careful politician (Hillary) actually said such dumb shit (We need to do away with the electoral college!) that she was obviously also shocked.

Now, I know my vote is meaningless for President. The same is true for everyone who posts here EXCEPT violins. I know that Mi. or Pa. or even Texas and Cali COULD be in play given the right candidate, but if any of those states ARE in play the election is over.

We've gone from being on the soccer pitch, or at least thinking we were, to being in the stands.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
I was thinking the 2000 election changed how we feel about the power of our vote.

I knew about the electoral college, and I saw the networks knock off state by state results in past elections, but still I could look at the popular total vote and see my vote, and see who was "winning."

then 2000, that gets turned on it's head. it was such an odd moment that at least one careful politician (Hillary) actually said such dumb shit (We need to do away with the electoral college!) that she was obviously also shocked.

Now, I know my vote is meaningless for President. The same is true for everyone who posts here EXCEPT violins. I know that Mi. or Pa. or even Texas and Cali COULD be in play given the right candidate, but if any of those states ARE in play the election is over.

We've gone from being on the soccer pitch, or at least thinking we were, to being in the stands.

Pa will go blue because, save a few enclaves of young professionals ringing Philly, in the Lihigh Valley and scattered around Pittsburgh, this is a state of scared old people, cancered with political cronyism.

The Democrat entitlement machine is stronger here than anywhere. The Union Get Out the Vote scare-mongering is truly something to behold (they'll drag a person from intensive care to get him to the polls).

The sad fact is, until the state drives itself to the edge of bankruptcy (which it will do, since more and more law firms and businesses are relying on state contracts evry day), nothing's going to change. Philadelphia's hemorrhaging business. If not for a flight of NYers who ran here because they couldn't afford homes in NYC (the Phila to NYC commuter tribe gets bigger every day), the City'd be showing an astounding economic downturn.

Pennsylvania's a problem state for the GOP down the road.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
(the Phila to NYC commuter tribe gets bigger every day),

Damn. What is a Philly-NYC daily commute like, anyway? It sounds brutal.

[nononono]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Damn. What is a Philly-NYC daily commute like, anyway? It sounds brutal.

I have a friend doing a Princeton-NYC commute. It sounds awful to me, but it's for Wachtell, so I guess it's worth it to her. She claims it is not too bad, and I suppose she may have a point: traffic can only be so bad at 2 a.m.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Damn. What is a Philly-NYC daily commute like, anyway? It sounds brutal.

I used to do it on the Acela when I had a bunch of cases up there. It was actually pleasant (since the client was paying for the tix).

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by Hank Chinaski
(Hillary) actually said such dumb shit (We need to do away with the electoral college!)

Why is that dumb? Why do we need an electoral college?