RE: Is it just me....
The earlier version sent itself a bit too early. Sorry. :) David Hobby wrote: > > Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the > > world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say > 'language' do you > > mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump > > their chests and ask for a separate nation? > > Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one > language, if that helped. : ) *g* Depends on what you want to achieve really - it can certainly throw up a number of protests, marches, fiery speeches and the like. But we can always group Hindustani and its parent languages [Hindi and Urdu] together. :) > Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would > just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians > to decide things like this... Nor can we trust them to sit by quietly while the people decide. They would out rousing the people, using any idea that let them stay in power longer, trying to create divisions. There usually is somebody who is willing to do that. And many who are willing to keep quiet while it is being done. > > I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not > > share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > > Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. Fair enough. :) > If a > whole bunch of really different regions want to be one country, fine. > On the other hand, what would be so wrong with them being many > different countries, bound together as the countries in the EU are? Administrational and developmental needs. When you are a new country, trying hard to catch up on the developmental front, you do not plan things according to regional sufficiency. Power plants, dams, railways networks, industrial production etc is all geared up on the basis of there being a single nation. The time and investment needed to make each region self-sufficient would be significant, and if, in the meantime any of the stronger/better placed regions decide to create some trouble [which is not so unlikely if it wants to be richer/more powerful], then the derailemt would be expensive. It seems like unnecessary chaos to me. I am more comfortable with the notion that if people want to get away that bad, then they should work hard for it. Not that let the divisions be, if the people want to get together later, they can always do that. > > And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in > distinct > > localities? > > Well, it's not. It's something you would create if > they demonstrated they can't share localities. According to me, this is the sticky bit. Unless there has been a relatively recent displacement of population, mixed ehtnicities sharing a locality have already demonstrated that they can share in peace. But once there is a suggestion that there might be a segregation, certain people emphasise the differences, whip up passions, and try to turn that suggestion into a reality. > >>Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > >>are, we get to negotiate their borders. > > > > Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? > > And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > > 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of > neighboring countries, together with the outside power > (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. > You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside > power intervening, did you? Oh no, I didn't. :) I think that it is usually the outsiders who think that a division is a good idea. > >>Some people > >>would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one > >>could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. > > > Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that > > choice in 1947. > > This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got > India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? Sikhs, along with Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Chritians, Jews etc, got India. The demand was for a separate state for Muslims, and some of them got it and chose to move there. But more Muslims stayed in India than went to Pakistan, and there never was a demand for a separate homeland for Hindus. And neither was India ever meant for Hindus alone. > Now if one's property becomes worthless because the > government of one's country messes up, that's too bad, but it > would not be considered "actionable". (One could for > instance have removed assets from the country before the > one-year waiting period took effect.) But you don't need the government to mess up. The market will fall once it is certain that a slew of properties are coming up on the market because of the dislocation. People who need to move out want the cash fast - they need it to buy a home in the other country. And those who invest in properties would know that they can get the properties much cheaper as the deadline comes closer. Government interve
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the > > world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say > 'language' do you > > mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump > > their chests and ask for a separate nation? > > Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one > language, if that helped. : ) *g* Depends on what you want to achieve really - it can certainly throw up a number of protests, marches, fiery speeches and the like. But we can always group Hindustani and its parent languages [Hindi and Urdu] together. :) > >>Separate countries created this way could always decide to > >>merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. > > > > > > Yeah right. You create different states, make random > politicians heads > > of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you > expect them > > to give that up to merge...? > > Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would > just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians > to decide things like this... > > >>Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > >>clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > >>keep them together. > > > > What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered > > obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? > > "Historic reasons" was my euphemism for "somebody conquered > all these places, and decided to call it a country". If > history matters that much, the groups can always choose to > stay together. > > > I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not > > share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > > Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. > If a whole bunch of really different regions want to be one > country, fine. On the other hand, what would be so wrong > with them being many different countries, bound together as > the countries in the EU are? > > >>I do agree with you, the people involved should get to decide. I'm > >>not sure what the best mechanism for this would be. One > could start > >>by giving every linguistically (or however) distinct group its own > >>homeland, ideally a place where they made up most of the population. > >>(I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > >>assuming they'd want a homeland.) > > > > Who will 'give' these homelands? > > I'm presuming that the groups would already be in > de facto possession of their "homelands". Having to > clear out the indigenous people to create a homeland > for others is not an ideal solution! (This could > now turn into an argument about Israel, but let's > refrain.) > > > And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in > distinct > > localities? > > Well, it's not. It's something you would create if > they demonstrated they can't share localities. But > just having a homeland might take some pressure off > of a group? > > >>Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > >>are, we get to negotiate their borders. > > > > Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? > > And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > > 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of > neighboring countries, together with the outside power > (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. > You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside > power intervening, did you? > > >>Some people > >>would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one > >>could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. > > > Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that > > choice in 1947. > > This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got > India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? Sikhs, along with Hindus, Muslims, Jains, Buddhists, Parsis, Chritians, Jews etc, got India. The demand was for a separate state for Muslims, and some of them got it and chose to move there. But more Muslims stayed in India than went to Pakistan, and there never was a demand for a separate homeland for Hindus. And neither was India ever meant for Hindus alone. > >>There would have to be some > >>carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > >>oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair > >>compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go > >>to their homeland, or wherever. > > > > This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in > > practice. New nations are free to form their own > constitutions, they > > are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their > > minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and > how well > > these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when > the nation is > > in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government > funds are > > tied up in protective and relief measures.
RE: Is it just me....
Rich wrote: > Rich, who would be interested in more detailed and accurate figures > than he could find in ten minutes of googling. Well, here is the page for the UN operations from 1995 to 2006: http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/ And I reckon the UN does do more than 1% of the peacekeeping missions. The US contribution there [and I found roughly the same figures there that you mentioned] is slightly more than 0.5% in terms of troops*. The financial contribution is more [30% in the years before 2000, and 27% ever since]. However, the source says that the payments are 'massively in arrears'. Am not sure how much has actually been paid. But even if we assume that most of the payments have been made, it is still way less than 99.9%. Ritu * - The biggest contributors here are the countries from the developing world. The top twenty contributors are from Africa and Asia, and the first three places are taken by the three countries on the subcontinent [Bangladesh, Pakistan, and India, in that order]. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Ronn! said: Actually all I was hinting was that whenever troops get sent to "keep the peace" in some region of the world, 99% of the time the troops and the money come from the good ol' U—S—A . . . This is totally untrue. If we look at UN peacekeeping operations, the USA ranks 31st out of 107 contributing nations, providing a mere 372 out of a total of 73,034 UN peacekeepers. Now let's look at operations not under UN command. In Afghanistan, there are around 9000 troops in the NATO ISAF force. The largest contributors are Germany, France and Spain; there are 89 attached US troops. An additional 5,000 British troops in Afghanistan are not attached to ISAF. It seems there are also 2000 Canadian troops not under NATO command. The US deployment to Afghanistan is something like 21,000. In the Balkans, there are around 7000 troops from EUFOR. The only figure I could find for US deployment there was 250 troops. Even in Iraq, there are currently 133,000 US troops, but also 8000 British so the US is providing far less than 99% of the troops. Rich, who would be interested in more detailed and accurate figures than he could find in ten minutes of googling. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Ritu wrote: David Hobby wrote: I'd even propose that partition into separate countries should be the default for groups with separate languages. Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say 'language' do you mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump their chests and ask for a separate nation? Just languages! I'd even call Hindi and Urdu one language, if that helped. : ) Separate countries created this way could always decide to merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. Yeah right. You create different states, make random politicians heads of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you expect them to give that up to merge...? Well, the PEOPLE would decide, in my system. It would just go to a popular vote. We can't trust politicians to decide things like this... Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to keep them together. What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? "Historic reasons" was my euphemism for "somebody conquered all these places, and decided to call it a country". If history matters that much, the groups can always choose to stay together. I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not share this love of dismemberment, David. :) Ritu-- I was overstating things to get a reaction, I guess. If a whole bunch of really different regions want to be one country, fine. On the other hand, what would be so wrong with them being many different countries, bound together as the countries in the EU are? I do agree with you, the people involved should get to decide. I'm not sure what the best mechanism for this would be. One could start by giving every linguistically (or however) distinct group its own homeland, ideally a place where they made up most of the population. (I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, assuming they'd want a homeland.) Who will 'give' these homelands? I'm presuming that the groups would already be in de facto possession of their "homelands". Having to clear out the indigenous people to create a homeland for others is not an ideal solution! (This could now turn into an argument about Israel, but let's refrain.) And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in distinct localities? Well, it's not. It's something you would create if they demonstrated they can't share localities. But just having a homeland might take some pressure off of a group? Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries are, we get to negotiate their borders. Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? 'We' would include everybody involved. The group of neighboring countries, together with the outside power (hopefully the UN) who was trying to help produce a solution. You didn't think this was going to happen without an outside power intervening, did you? Some people would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that choice in 1947. This might be a tangent, but here goes: The Hindus got India, the Muslims got Pakistan, and what region did the Sikhs get? There would have to be some carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go to their homeland, or wherever. This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in practice. New nations are free to form their own constitutions, they are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and how well these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when the nation is in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government funds are tied up in protective and relief measures. New nations are also free to go to war with each other and then make it close to impossible for their new enemy's citizens to enter their nation. Ritu You have hit on a flaw of my argument, it does presume that there is an outside power which can enforce justice. Maybe there would have to be a period of a year before the constitution took effect. If it was sufficiently bad for some groups, that would be their time to get out. What I was getting at is that it is certainly unjust to force a group out AND confiscate their possessions. So I was trying to remove an economic motivation for picking on minorities. Now if one's property becomes worthless because the government of one's country messes up, that's too bad, but it would not be considered "actionable". (One could for
Re: Is it just me....
At 12:10 AM Saturday 3/25/2006, David Hobby wrote: ... "Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still struggle to control that strong centrally controlled army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems. (By the way, exactly who would be paying for that army?) Ask yourself that question again in about three weeks. --Ronn! :) Ronn-- So you're hinting that the semi-autonomous regions of a recently invaded country could get the invading power to give them military aid if they promised to stop fighting each other? Nonsense! Why the invading power would have to be run by a total idiot! ---David Actually all I was hinting was that whenever troops get sent to "keep the peace" in some region of the world, 99% of the time the troops and the money come from the good ol' USA . . . --Ronn! :) "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?" -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
... "Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still struggle to control that strong centrally controlled army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems. (By the way, exactly who would be paying for that army?) Ask yourself that question again in about three weeks. --Ronn! :) Ronn-- So you're hinting that the semi-autonomous regions of a recently invaded country could get the invading power to give them military aid if they promised to stop fighting each other? Nonsense! Why the invading power would have to be run by a total idiot! ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 22 Mar 2006 at 22:02, David Hobby wrote: > Andrew Crystall wrote: > ... > >>This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those > >>of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi > >>people, and doing what's best for them is about the only > >>remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. > > > > > > I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce > > Turkey's hand. > > > > The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous > > regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign > > policy. > > > > That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic > > policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter- > > factional violence and for foreign policy. > > Andrew-- > > So Turkey has a right to oppress its Kurdish minority? > If the USA cares so much about increasing freedom in > the world, then it should be right there, telling > Turkey that it had better let its Kurdish regions > secede, or else. : ) (There are a lot of wrongs to > be righted, aren't there?) Nope, but deliberately setting up something which is likely to explode into violence is wrong. It is why, for example, that while tensions in Israel were building at the time, Sharon was wrong to visit Temple Mount and spark the Intafada early. And, well, let's just say that I'm more of "if you funded them 20 years ago and got them into power, clean your mess up" school of thought. > "Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of > saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still > struggle to control that strong centrally controlled > army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce > tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems. > (By the way, exactly who would be paying for that > army?) I'm not saying it'd be perfect, or even good. I just think it'd be better than the current situation. AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Ritu wrote: hould be the default for groups with separate languages. Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the world. I don't like the idea either. Drawing lines and creating ethnic enclaves would tend to reinforce natural xenophobic tendencies, IMO. So while it might promote short term harmony (though I'm not even sure of that), it would do little to solve the long term problem. I think the idea behind the EU - blurring boundries - is closer to the right idea. Turkey should be encouraged to respect the Kurdish minority and grant it some degree of political responsibility especially in regions where they are the dominant ethnicity, but expecting Turkey or any other country to just lop off some portion of their territory and hand it over to someone else is unrealistic. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 9:43 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > >> > >> There'll be a lag on free movement/employment like there is with some > >> of the recent members. This is going to be a 20 year process at > >> least. > > > > Ah, I didn't know about the lag for recent members. Thanks for the > > correction. I looked at the EU website, and a couple more, and I > > never saw > > the maximum length of the restrictions given. Do you happen to > > know offhand > > where such a site is? If not, I'll keep looking. > > Not a clue. I'm fairly sure they were bilaterally negotiated between > each applicant and the EU, so there probably isn't a "maximum > length". I wasn't thinking about an established upper limit, but the longest "cooling off period" that has applied to Eastern European countries that have joined. >I *think* it was something like 3 > year "cooling off period" for countries like Poland. So, within a couple more years (we're one year into this period from what I've read), there should be free movement? > As for Turkey, there'll be a period of maybe another 10 or 15 years > where they'll get closer and closer to free trade with the EU and > there will be less red tape for Turkish nationals who are offered > employment etc (much as it's easier for Brits to work in Oz than for > Americans...). Full membership won't take less than 15-20 years from > now, and even then they'll have the cooling off period. I agree with your last sentence. I think we may disagree over whether it is likely that this will happen. It's experimentally testable, I think. In 5 more years, if there isn't any real progress towards freer trade and free movement (I'll agree that less red tape counts as progress), then my guesses are supported. If real progress is made, then that is evidence against my prediction. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 23, 2006, at 2:29 PM, David Hobby wrote: I'd even propose that partition into separate countries should be the default for groups with separate languages. That's England into about 4 countries (and full separation for Wales and Scotland), and the US into at least a couple (you can't tell me that southern swamp drawl is the same language as Noo Yark...). Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > I'd even propose that partition into separate countries > should be the default for groups with separate languages. Eww! I think that is a pretty bad idea, at least for my part of the world. Just out of curiousity though, when you say 'language' do you mean just official languages or do the dialects also get to thump their chests and ask for a separate nation? > Separate countries created this way could always decide to > merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. Yeah right. You create different states, make random politicians heads of state instead of mere heads of provinces/areas, and you expect them to give that up to merge...? > Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not > clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to > keep them together. What is wrong with historic reasons? Why should they be considered obviously inferior to linguistic or ethnic reasons? I have never been a fan of keeping people in forcibly, but I do not share this love of dismemberment, David. :) > I do agree with you, the people involved should get to > decide. I'm not sure what the best mechanism for this > would be. One could start by giving every linguistically > (or however) distinct group its own homeland, ideally > a place where they made up most of the population. > (I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, > assuming they'd want a homeland.) Who will 'give' these homelands? And why is it a good idea to have distinct groups living in distinct localities? > Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries > are, we get to negotiate their borders. Who is 'we' and who are 'they' whose borders 'we' get to negotiate? And why do 'we' get to negotiate 'their' borders? > Some people > would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's > homeland, one could either move there, or stay where > one was as a minority. Yeah, millions of muslims, sikhs, and hindus faced and made that choice in 1947. > There would have to be some > carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being > oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair > compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go > to their homeland, or wherever. This is nice in theory but sometimes just doesn't work too well in practice. New nations are free to form their own constitutions, they are free to choose what rights they do or do not bestow upon their minorities. They are also free to choose just how often and how well these laws would be enforced. Property prices crash when the nation is in a turmoil due to a partition and relocation, government funds are tied up in protective and relief measures. New nations are also free to go to war with each other and then make it close to impossible for their new enemy's citizens to enter their nation. Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 23, 2006, at 2:25 PM, Dan Minette wrote: There'll be a lag on free movement/employment like there is with some of the recent members. This is going to be a 20 year process at least. Ah, I didn't know about the lag for recent members. Thanks for the correction. I looked at the EU website, and a couple more, and I never saw the maximum length of the restrictions given. Do you happen to know offhand where such a site is? If not, I'll keep looking. Not a clue. I'm fairly sure they were bilaterally negotiated between each applicant and the EU, so there probably isn't a "maximum length". Doesn't apply to Cyprus. I *think* it was something like 3 year "cooling off period" for countries like Poland. As for Turkey, there'll be a period of maybe another 10 or 15 years where they'll get closer and closer to free trade with the EU and there will be less red tape for Turkish nationals who are offered employment etc (much as it's easier for Brits to work in Oz than for Americans...). Full membership won't take less than 15-20 years from now, and even then they'll have the cooling off period. Charlie. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
At 09:02 PM Wednesday 3/22/2006, David Hobby wrote: Andrew Crystall wrote: ... This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi people, and doing what's best for them is about the only remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce Turkey's hand. The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign policy. That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter- factional violence and for foreign policy. Andrew-- So Turkey has a right to oppress its Kurdish minority? If the USA cares so much about increasing freedom in the world, then it should be right there, telling Turkey that it had better let its Kurdish regions secede, or else. : ) (There are a lot of wrongs to be righted, aren't there?) "Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still struggle to control that strong centrally controlled army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems. (By the way, exactly who would be paying for that army?) Ask yourself that question again in about three weeks. --Ronn! :) "Since I was a small boy, two states have been added to our country and two words have been added to the pledge of Allegiance... UNDER GOD. Wouldn't it be a pity if someone said that is a prayer and that would be eliminated from schools too?" -- Red Skelton (Someone asked me to change my .sig quote back, so I did.) ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Ritu wrote: ... I maintain that a peaceful partition is better than a decade of civil war, followed by the same division. ... I have been thinking about this, and have realised that I'd have less of a problem with a Partition if the people involved decide they want one - after trying to find a way to run their country without partitioning it. What I seem to be strongly opposed to is the notion of some outsider deciding that partition might be the best simply because they can't control what is happening on the ground and aren't invested in the country enough to want to figure out a solution. I wonder where I got that from... ;) Ritu Ritu-- I'd even propose that partition into separate countries should be the default for groups with separate languages. Separate countries created this way could always decide to merge; I'm sure the three or four parts of Switzerland would. (In _On Mountains_, John Jerome proposes that this is because the commonality of living in the mountains is stronger than a mere difference of languages...) Many countries exist for historical reasons, it's not clear to me that one should expend much energy trying to keep them together. I do agree with you, the people involved should get to decide. I'm not sure what the best mechanism for this would be. One could start by giving every linguistically (or however) distinct group its own homeland, ideally a place where they made up most of the population. (I'm not sure what to do with the Gypsies, for instance, assuming they'd want a homeland.) Then once we have a rough idea of what the countries are, we get to negotiate their borders. Some people would have to choose, then. If one was outside one's homeland, one could either move there, or stay where one was as a minority. There would have to be some carefully designed laws to stop minorities from being oppressed. Certainly they should always be able to get fair compensation for property they leave behind, and to then go to their homeland, or wherever. ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 6:19 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > > On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: > > > > They would still be unlikely to get EU membership if they kept on > > progressingeven to the point of treating their ethnic > > minorities better > > than they are treated elsewhere in the EU. If they joined the EU, > > then > > Turks would have the same privileges to work in any country as any > > current > > member. That won't be allowed to happen. > > There'll be a lag on free movement/employment like there is with some > of the recent members. This is going to be a 20 year process at least. Ah, I didn't know about the lag for recent members. Thanks for the correction. I looked at the EU website, and a couple more, and I never saw the maximum length of the restrictions given. Do you happen to know offhand where such a site is? If not, I'll keep looking. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Andrew Crystall wrote: ... This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi people, and doing what's best for them is about the only remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce Turkey's hand. The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign policy. That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter- factional violence and for foreign policy. Andrew-- So Turkey has a right to oppress its Kurdish minority? If the USA cares so much about increasing freedom in the world, then it should be right there, telling Turkey that it had better let its Kurdish regions secede, or else. : ) (There are a lot of wrongs to be righted, aren't there?) "Semi-autonomous regions" might be a polite way of saying "countries", anyway. The regions would still struggle to control that strong centrally controlled army, wouldn't they? So I bet that this would reduce tensions some, but maybe not solve all the problems. (By the way, exactly who would be paying for that army?) ---David ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 23, 2006, at 8:29 AM, Dan Minette wrote: They would still be unlikely to get EU membership if they kept on progressingeven to the point of treating their ethnic minorities better than they are treated elsewhere in the EU. If they joined the EU, then Turks would have the same privileges to work in any country as any current member. That won't be allowed to happen. There'll be a lag on free movement/employment like there is with some of the recent members. This is going to be a 20 year process at least. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Andrew Crystall > Sent: Wednesday, March 22, 2006 3:22 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > On 22 Mar 2006 at 13:51, Charlie Bell wrote: > > > > > On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > > > Fourth, the Kurds effectively become semi-independent (because the > > > central government was set up so as to allow tribal trouble at the > > > drop of a hat, but let's no go there) and Turkey gets annoyed. > > > > > > Turkey then gives up on EU membership (since several politicians have > > > > > > made it clear to them they won't get it anyway), > > > and goes full out on > > > > > > squashing Kurds. > > > > As opposed to just squashing the Kurds inside Turkey (occupied > > Kurdistan...) as they are now and have been for a very long time. > > Hence why they're very unlikely to get EU membership, right. > They would still be unlikely to get EU membership if they kept on progressingeven to the point of treating their ethnic minorities better than they are treated elsewhere in the EU. If they joined the EU, then Turks would have the same privileges to work in any country as any current member. That won't be allowed to happen. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 22 Mar 2006 at 13:51, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > > > > Fourth, the Kurds effectively become semi-independent (because the > > central government was set up so as to allow tribal trouble at the > > drop of a hat, but let's no go there) and Turkey gets annoyed. > > > > Turkey then gives up on EU membership (since several politicians have > > > > made it clear to them they won't get it anyway), > > and goes full out on > > > > squashing Kurds. > > As opposed to just squashing the Kurds inside Turkey (occupied > Kurdistan...) as they are now and have been for a very long time. Hence why they're very unlikely to get EU membership, right. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > > And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most > > Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very > > few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such > division is bound > > to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the > > high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the > > somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living > > under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely > > peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions > not only > > give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always > the cause of > > further unrest. > > Ritu-- > > I maintain that a peaceful partition is better than > a decade of civil war, followed by the same division. I am willing to concede the possibility that it might well be true, David. What I am questioning is the notion of carrying out a peaceful division in the current circumstances. > Yugoslavia, for instance, wound up partitioned. It's not > even clear to me that partitioning is bad per se. Most of the > problems seem to arise when various groups are arguing about > how a country should be partitioned. And various groups invariably argue about how a country should be partitioned. It, after all, is a matter of territory and resources, and therefore a matter of the power they can project later. > If one can broker a "fair" partition, it could all be > fairly painless. I also think that minority groups > could avoid persecution, IF it was clear to all involved > that they were a minority. There are many instances in > history where minorities have been tolerated, even by > societies that one would hesitate to call enlightened. Unless the constitution guarantees equal rights to the minorities, any such 'tolerance' is dependant upon the whims of the majority. And, in practice, it usually means that the minority gives up a large portion of its rights. > >>It would be best for the Iraqi people, > > > > I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation > even with the > > best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the > planning > > or the execution would be anything to write home about. > > Wait a minute, I wasn't thinking it would actually > happen in Iraq. Certainly not with the present group > of "planners" who are running the USA! So I was > imagining competent planning and execution, since > this was a thought experiment. *g* Ok > > Ritu > > GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay > > ---David > > But sometimes better than the alternatives, Maru. I have been thinking about this, and have realised that I'd have less of a problem with a Partition if the people involved decide they want one - after trying to find a way to run their country without partitioning it. What I seem to be strongly opposed to is the notion of some outsider deciding that partition might be the best simply because they can't control what is happening on the ground and aren't invested in the country enough to want to figure out a solution. I wonder where I got that from... ;) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 22, 2006, at 1:22 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Fourth, the Kurds effectively become semi-independent (because the central government was set up so as to allow tribal trouble at the drop of a hat, but let's no go there) and Turkey gets annoyed. Turkey then gives up on EU membership (since several politicians have made it clear to them they won't get it anyway), and goes full out on squashing Kurds. As opposed to just squashing the Kurds inside Turkey (occupied Kurdistan...) as they are now and have been for a very long time. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
On 20 Mar 2006 at 16:33, Dan Minette wrote: > Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. > Unfortunately, he's now premium content at the NY Times, so I can't quote > him exactly. In one of his columns he looks at three possible outcomes in > Iraq. Um. Fourth, the Kurds effectively become semi-independent (because the central government was set up so as to allow tribal trouble at the drop of a hat, but let's no go there) and Turkey gets annoyed. Turkey then gives up on EU membership (since several politicians have made it clear to them they won't get it anyway), and goes full out on squashing Kurds. This then draws other regional powers into the conflict and you end up with a messy war in the entire region again. Entirely possible. Probable? Maybe not, but definitely something to plan for avoiding. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 20 Mar 2006 at 23:51, David Hobby wrote: > Dan Minette wrote: > ... > > Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. > ... > > Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the > > middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you > > would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that > > natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The influence > > on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to hold > > up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant human > > rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass > > killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. > > Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn > into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. > (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) > > This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those > of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi > people, and doing what's best for them is about the only > remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. I disagree, because any Kurdish state would, quite honestly, fprce Turkey's hand. The answer which makes the most sense to me is semi-autonomous regions, with a strong centrally-controlled army and single foreign policy. That way, each of the groups gets to set many of their own domestic policys, but they are tied into oen umbrella for controlling inter- factional violence and for foreign policy. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
On 21 Mar 2006 at 10:08, Dan Minette wrote: > > Yeah. I guess a fairly mammoth close air support operation (of the > > order of the first 6 hours of Desert Storm) would have been needed to > > protect Seoul. > > If he thought that would have been sufficient, I don't think that Clinton > would have settled for half a loaf. From what I've read, North Korea has > 1000 pieces that are capable of hitting Seoul Right. Which is why the S. Koreans are *moving* their capital, right? AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:44 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > Dan wrote: > > > I don't see it as that black and white. Our presence helped fuel the > > insurgence. The stupidity of the initial policy gave it a chance to > > flourish and grow. But, I don't see our leaving as ending it. > > You're right it isn't as cut and dried as I made it sound. > > > At the present time, the US is the controlling force in Iraq. It does > > have trouble suppressing the insurgency, no doubt, but it prevents other > > forces from being dominant. The present goals of the US, getting the > > Iraq armed > > forces trained to the point where they can at least hold their own with > > militias and insurgents and to nudge the political factions into a > > coalition > > government. > > Yes, we've heard that mantra for quite a while now and it becomes less and > less convincing. If we can't train an appreciable force after being there > three years, how long is it going to take? Competent training people have been in place for less than a year. The response of the Iraqi military to the rise in sectarian violence was not disasterous. That's actually quite an improvement over earlier responses. >>But, they also see moderate Arab > > governments as enemies, or at least pawns of the US. They are not > > inherently opposed to the people of Iraq, but they are inherently > > opposed to Iraq developing into a moderate Arab state, such as Jordan. > > Do you believe that they will be able to recruit as easily once we leave? They? probably not. Sunni insurgents and militia, most definitely. > Do you think that they will become the dominant force? No. I think that if we left as quickly as possible, the strongest forces would be the various militia. They would be in a better position to nudge things into chaos under those circumstances...because the knowledge that there was a force for stability in Iraq stronger than any militia would be gone. A phased, planned withdrawal would not have the same effect, because it would be reasonable to see it as "we're handing responsibility off, now, we've done what we could" instead of "run away". >Do you think that they will attract as much financial support once we >are gone? After a great victory, yes. > > If that happens, and the parliament actually runs the company, then Bush > > would have succeeded in Iraq. > > If he is forced by congress and public pressure to withdraw, he'll get the > credit? In any case who cares who gets the credit? The purpose for my statement is that I think that the scenario you describe is far too optimisticthat it is optimistic enough to fit as a variation on Bush's view of how things would turn out. > > > > Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of > > weeks. Unfortunately, he's now premium content at the NY Times, so I > > can't quote > > him exactly. In one of his columns he looks at three possible outcomes > > in Iraq. > > > > First, he states that there is still some chance that a coalition > > government will form, and the Iraqi troops will be well trained enough > > to be the > > strongest force in Iraq...at least enough to hold their own against > > insurgents and militias. This is the best possible outcome. > > > > Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the > > middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you > > would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that > > natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The > influence > > on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to > > hold up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant > > human > > rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass > > killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. > > > > The third alternative is that we sit there and "babysit" the > > disintegration for years to come. We'll always hope that things will > > get better, but we'll still be identified as the one to make them worse. > > > > Obviously, this analysis tends to lead one to conclude that we can't > just > > stay in Iraq. Yet, it isn't a call for a quick, immediate withdrawal. > > Rather, it seems to call for a transition from the US being the > > controllin
RE: Is it just me....
Dan M. wrote: > > Even though the S. Korean military, by itself, should be strong > enough to win a second Korean war within a month, the N. Korean > armed forces are capable of inflicting tremendous damage during such > a war. Estimates that I've seen indicate that, with a massive US > presence (as you suggested), N. Korea's capacity would be severely > degraded within a week. The problem is that this isn't sufficient > for S. Korea to be sanguine about the results of a second Korean > war. During that week, they could sustain massive > casualtiesmost of which would occur in the first day or two. > I think the problem is that S. Korea does not want to pay the price of _winning_ such a war. The worst case scenario would be a total surrender of N. Korean forces, and then S. Korea would have to pay the price of anschlussing the miserable and hungry N. Koreans, in a scale much higher than W. Germany paid when they anschlussed Demokratic Germany. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Tuesday, March 21, 2006 12:01 AM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > > Yeah. I guess a fairly mammoth close air support operation (of the > order of the first 6 hours of Desert Storm) would have been needed to > protect Seoul. If he thought that would have been sufficient, I don't think that Clinton would have settled for half a loaf. From what I've read, North Korea has 1000 pieces that are capable of hitting Seouland about 8000 that are capable of hitting S. Korean forces. Some of these are in hardened sites, and some of them are mobile. They also have extensive chemical and biological weapon capabilities. From Gulf War II and Desert Storm, I'd guess it would take at least a day to eliminate half of these...two days to eliminate 75%, etcuntil the S. Korean and US forces were able to cross the DMZ and push the N. Korean forces back. Even though the S. Korean military, by itself, should be strong enough to win a second Korean war within a month, the N. Korean armed forces are capable of inflicting tremendous damage during such a war. Estimates that I've seen indicate that, with a massive US presence (as you suggested), N. Korea's capacity would be severely degraded within a week. The problem is that this isn't sufficient for S. Korea to be sanguine about the results of a second Korean war. During that week, they could sustain massive casualtiesmost of which would occur in the first day or two. Dan M. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Ritu wrote: David Hobby wrote: Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such division is bound to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions not only give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always the cause of further unrest. Ritu-- I maintain that a peaceful partition is better than a decade of civil war, followed by the same division. Yugoslavia, for instance, wound up partitioned. It's not even clear to me that partitioning is bad per se. Most of the problems seem to arise when various groups are arguing about how a country should be partitioned. If one can broker a "fair" partition, it could all be fairly painless. I also think that minority groups could avoid persecution, IF it was clear to all involved that they were a minority. There are many instances in history where minorities have been tolerated, even by societies that one would hesitate to call enlightened. It would be best for the Iraqi people, I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation even with the best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the planning or the execution would be anything to write home about. Wait a minute, I wasn't thinking it would actually happen in Iraq. Certainly not with the present group of "planners" who are running the USA! So I was imagining competent planning and execution, since this was a thought experiment. Ritu GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay ---David But sometimes better than the alternatives, Maru. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 3/19/06, Doug Pensinger <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Andrew wrote: > > > > Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other > > western counties. > > > > All in all, if they want to die for the cause, I'd prefer they did so > > over there. > > Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the swamp - > or at least some portion of it - by leaving. Jim Wallis was the first to use the mosquito/swamp metaphor, as far as I know, but you've changed it a bit. Here's an actual quote: "Unless we drain the swamp of injustice in which the mosquitoes of terrorism breed, we'll never defeat the threat of terrorism." Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Charlie Bell wrote: > >> For example, Lybia was only about a year >> away from a bomb when Quadafi (sp) > > Spell it how you like, it'll never transliterate properly! > (Gaddafi, Qadafi, whatever... nearly as many variants as > Qaeda/Qaida etc) > There is one official, ISO-something, way to transliterate arab characters into latin. Long ago it was Khad[d]af[f]i. Alberto Monteiro ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 3/19/06, Andrew Crystall <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On 19 Mar 2006 at 17:45, Doug Pensinger wrote: > > > Is it just me or does anyone else see that the major reason there is an > > insurgency in Iraq is our (the U.S.) pressence? Everyone seems to agree > > that Al Qaida is provoking the sectarian violence, and that they > consider > > the U.S., not Iraq, their enemy. If we leave, they loose most of their > > purpose there and maybe the insurgency goes away. > > Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other > western counties. Are you saying that people would would otherwise be committing terrorism in the west are not doing so because we're keeping them busy in Iraq? That there are people who are thinking something like this: "I could go bomb New York, but why bother when I can bomb in Iraq?" That terrorism in Iraq is more attractive than terrorism in the West? That we are distracting terrorists away from the west? That potential terrorists are somehow satisfied with what's going on in Iraq, so they're saying among themselves, "We don't need to do anything in the west now?" It seems far more reasonable to me to believe that we have pissed off a whole lot of people with our invasion, who are now far more likely to commit terrorist acts in the west, given any opportunity. I don't feel safer. Nick -- Nick Arnett [EMAIL PROTECTED] Messages: 408-904-7198 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 11:03 PM, Alberto Monteiro wrote: There is one official, ISO-something, way to transliterate arab characters into latin. Long ago it was Khad[d]af[f]i. Could've guess Mr Standards would know that... :D Thanks! You'd hate Cypriot restaurants, the menus are rarely the same between them... Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
David Hobby wrote: > Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn > into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. > (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) And how do you propose that be done? From what I can make out, most Iraqis seem unhappy with the notion of a partition or two, and very few areas contain just one ethnic group. So any such division is bound to involve uprooting and dislocation of a lot of people. Given the high emotional fallout of any such dislocation, and considering the somewhat stressful conditions the Iraqis have already been living under, I rate the chances of such an upheaval remaining largely peaceful as between nil and zilch. Besides, such partitions not only give boost to sectarian violence, they are almost always the cause of further unrest. > It would be best for the Iraqi people, I really don't agree. It would be a very messy situation even with the best of planning and execution, and I doubt that either the planning or the execution would be anything to write home about. Ritu GCU Partitions Are Bad, Mmm'kay ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Dan wrote: I don't see it as that black and white. Our presence helped fuel the insurgence. The stupidity of the initial policy gave it a chance to flourish and grow. But, I don't see our leaving as ending it. You're right it isn't as cut and dried as I made it sound. At the present time, the US is the controlling force in Iraq. It does have trouble suppressing the insurgency, no doubt, but it prevents other forces from being dominant. The present goals of the US, getting the Iraq armed forces trained to the point where they can at least hold their own with militias and insurgents and to nudge the political factions into a coalition government. Yes, we've heard that mantra for quite a while now and it becomes less and less convincing. If we can't train an appreciable force after being there three years, how long is it going to take? Everyone seems to agree that Al Qaida is provoking the sectarian violence, and that they consider the U.S., not Iraq, their enemy. AQ certainly considers the US an enemy. But, they also see moderate Arab governments as enemies, or at least pawns of the US. They are not inherently opposed to the people of Iraq, but they are inherently opposed to Iraq developing into a moderate Arab state, such as Jordan. Do you believe that they will be able to recruit as easily once we leave? Do you think that they will become the dominant force? Do you think that they will attract as much financial support once we are gone? If that happens, and the parliament actually runs the company, then Bush would have succeeded in Iraq. If he is forced by congress and public pressure to withdraw, he'll get the credit? In any case who cares who gets the credit? Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately, he's now premium content at the NY Times, so I can't quote him exactly. In one of his columns he looks at three possible outcomes in Iraq. First, he states that there is still some chance that a coalition government will form, and the Iraqi troops will be well trained enough to be the strongest force in Iraq...at least enough to hold their own against insurgents and militias. This is the best possible outcome. Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The influence on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to hold up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant human rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. The third alternative is that we sit there and "babysit" the disintegration for years to come. We'll always hope that things will get better, but we'll still be identified as the one to make them worse. Obviously, this analysis tends to lead one to conclude that we can't just stay in Iraq. Yet, it isn't a call for a quick, immediate withdrawal. Rather, it seems to call for a transition from the US being the controlling force to Iraqi forces controlling Iraq. Ideally, of course, it would be the forces belonging to the elected central government. More realistically, both militia power and the power of elected representatives would need to be considered in Iraq. That is probably the best case scenario we can now hope for. Worst case is a civil war that turns very ugly, drawing neighboring countries into the fight. I do not think the Sunni governments around Iraq would stand by and let Sunni civilians be killed by the tens of thousands, for example. One final point: it appears that we finally have competent people on the ground in Iraq. Training the Iraqi military and having an ambassador who actually understands the region are gigantic steps over our initial foolishness. If we implemented the present strategy, if Bush used the post war plan developed by the State Department from the very beginning, it is probable that things would be significantly better than they are now. Indeed, history may show that Bush succeeded, through his arrogance, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. I think what we've got now _is_ civil war, that our pressence exacerbates the situation and that, as Buckley puts it "One can't doubt that the American objective in Iraq has failed." http://www.nationalreview.com/buckley/buckley200602241451.asp or http://tinyurl.com/pt4oe -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 3:51 PM, David Hobby wrote: Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) Chances are the Shia part would merge with Iran, and possibly the Sunni part with Syria or Jordan, leaving a new Kurdistan. Net gain, no countries... :) This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi people, and doing what's best for them is about the only remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. Innit. :-i Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 3:35 PM, Dan Minette wrote: Or a couple of well-placed smart bombs from F-117s or B-2s, or covert special forces, if the US do the right thing and Iran don't. That's my point. THAT'S how to deal with the countries (insane dictatorships or otherwise) that present clear dangers. Pick the threat targets, and destroy them (hopefully without spreading too much uranium and plutonium across the landscape...). It had once been that simple, I think. Israel set Hussein back over a decade with their bombing run. Now, countries often go to much greater lengths to hide their activities. ...and at the same time, we cut our humint budgets 'cause "we can do it all with technology". D'oh. :( For example, Lybia was only about a year away from a bomb when Quadafi (sp) Spell it how you like, it'll never transliterate properly! (Gaddafi, Qadafi, whatever... nearly as many variants as Qaeda/Qaida etc) decided to come in out of the cold. Information we obtained after Gulf War I indicates that Hussein was a year or two away when he invaded Kuwait. India and Pakistan both surprised the US, and Western intelligence in general when they tested bombs. Indeed they did. While it is unlikely that they could physically reach Seoul with their armies, it is within shelling range of thousands of mortars/artillery pieces owned by North Korea. The estimates of the death toll that I've seen range from about 100k to 250k. Yeah. I guess a fairly mammoth close air support operation (of the order of the first 6 hours of Desert Storm) would have been needed to protect Seoul. Maybe the cost of that was why Kim has nukes now. *sigh* My understanding is that Clinton was persuaded to take half a loaf by the leader of South Korea, instead of putting millions in the line of fire. In a real sense, this type of death toll is consistent with what one would expect from the nuclear weapons that North Korea now has.so it has had a mini-MAD capability for a long time now. That's one way of looking at it. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Dan Minette wrote: ... Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. ... Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The influence on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to hold up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant human rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. Personally, I think the best solution is to help Iraq turn into three separate countries in a peaceful manner. (One each for the Kurds, Sunnis and Shiites.) This doesn't fit in with our geo-political plans, or those of Turkey, etc. So what? It would be best for the Iraqi people, and doing what's best for them is about the only remaining excuse for the whole war in the first place. ---David Ruling a country is like cooking a small fish, and all that. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Charlie Bell > Sent: Monday, March 20, 2006 7:01 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Re: Is it just me > > > > Or a couple of well-placed smart bombs from F-117s or B-2s, or covert > special forces, if the US do the right thing and Iran don't. That's > my point. THAT'S how to deal with the countries (insane dictatorships > or otherwise) that present clear dangers. Pick the threat targets, > and destroy them (hopefully without spreading too much uranium and > plutonium across the landscape...). It had once been that simple, I think. Israel set Hussein back over a decade with their bombing run. Now, countries often go to much greater lengths to hide their activities. For example, Lybia was only about a year away from a bomb when Quadafi (sp) decided to come in out of the cold. Information we obtained after Gulf War I indicates that Hussein was a year or two away when he invaded Kuwait. India and Pakistan both surprised the US, and Western intelligence in general when they tested bombs. >From what I've read, it is probable, actually close to certain, that the US has dropped and retrieved survey teams in Iraq. What I get, from reading between the lines, is that they have concluded that there are numerous places where the program could be hiddenand it would not be something that could be taken out with a few bombing runs or commando raids. If it could, then I would have no argument with that being the action of choice. It might even be prudent for this to be done against targets in the hopes of delaying the acquisition of an A-bomb. But, it is probable, unless the leadership in Iran changes for the better, that they will have an A-bomb in time. >And, frankly. it's what should've been done to North Korea 5 years ago >before they had both nukes and the delivery system... When Clinton considered this, a bit over 10 years ago IIRC, it could have been done without much risk of a nuclear counter attack. However, a conventional counter-attack against Seoul was considered probable. While it is unlikely that they could physically reach Seoul with their armies, it is within shelling range of thousands of mortars/artillery pieces owned by North Korea. The estimates of the death toll that I've seen range from about 100k to 250k. My understanding is that Clinton was persuaded to take half a loaf by the leader of South Korea, instead of putting millions in the line of fire. In a real sense, this type of death toll is consistent with what one would expect from the nuclear weapons that North Korea now has.so it has had a mini-MAD capability for a long time now. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Certainly some of the current groups can't, but that doesn't mean that if they were willing that certain other factions wouldn't be willing to pay for them to go to the "great satan" and do attacks Most, from what I understand from British soldiers I know (in real life), seem to just be trying to get rid of the yanks from Iraq. The wider global terrorist groups may be recruiting there, but ...but must finish sentences before send ...but a large amount of the enemy action would not translate to further terrorism beyond the conclusion of the current action/ occupation. Of course, there are some that will, but I think leaving Iraq to settle down will ameliorate the worst of this. We can't prevent it (or prevent attacks on our homelands) by continued occupation, it's a false dichotomy. Anyway, as I said in my other post, I think we largely agree, we're just talking over the differences a bit. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 9:33 AM, Dan Minette wrote: Obviously, this analysis tends to lead one to conclude that we can't just stay in Iraq. Yet, it isn't a call for a quick, immediate withdrawal. Rather, it seems to call for a transition from the US being the controlling force to Iraqi forces controlling Iraq. Ideally, of course, it would be the forces belonging to the elected central government. More realistically, both militia power and the power of elected representatives would need to be considered in Iraq. That is probably the best case scenario we can now hope for. Absolutely agree. I don't think anyone is actually calling for the USA to up and leave TODAY NOW DAMMIT, just to start looking at how to pull out leaving the best they can. Worst case is a civil war that turns very ugly, drawing neighboring countries into the fight. I do not think the Sunni governments around Iraq would stand by and let Sunni civilians be killed by the tens of thousands, for example. :/ One final point: it appears that we finally have competent people on the ground in Iraq. Training the Iraqi military and having an ambassador who actually understands the region are gigantic steps over our initial foolishness. If we implemented the present strategy, if Bush used the post war plan developed by the State Department from the very beginning, it is probable that things would be significantly better than they are now. Indeed, history may show that Bush succeeded, through his arrogance, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. That is possibly the most honest assessment I've seen. Bush's arrogance (ignorance/incompetence?) has been a vast part of the problem all along. His desperation to get Saddam at all costs from the start of his office blinded him to any decent analysis or contingency for what to do after he'd got him. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 8:04 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: ...and most of those groups aren't capable of operating beyond borders. They're bandits. That is...surmise. Possibly, but informed surmise... Certainly some of the current groups can't, but that doesn't mean that if they were willing that certain other factions wouldn't be willing to pay for them to go to the "great satan" and do attacks Most, from what I understand from British soldiers I know (in real life), seem to just be trying to get rid of the yanks from Iraq. The wider global terrorist groups may be recruiting there, but And some of the groups can, but they chose not to simply because their leadership is quite happy to bleed expendable fighters for the cause relatively locally. Remove that, and they will have to look further afield, because the one they cannnot do is stop acting or they will be deposed by people who WILL act. *They* again. Who is *they*? It's bloody nebulous. There are terrorist groups, loose affiliations that the West calls Al-Qaeda/ Jamar Islamir or whatever. These work globally. There are Iraqi insurgent groups also whose ONLY goal is getting the occupation forces (as they see it) out of Iraq. This bundling of all potential enemies and combatants is both lazy and unhelpful. The insurgency may be being latched onto by extremist groups and some of our familiar terrorist groups, but it's far more complicated than that. Lesson learned: invading or militarily suppressing a territory without any real strategy for rebuilding, or understanding of how the various factions will act when let off the leash, PROMOTES terrorist recruitment. That is your interpretation of the facts. Mine is that true ideologically-based terror does not care about national borders, that they will attack anyway - and if they can attack a source closer to their bases, then they will. Northern Ireland. Viet-Nam. Central America. East Africa. It's not just Iraq, Iraq is just the most recent. We need to separate the global ideologues (I am NOT denying they exist, I just think we should deal with them differently) from the "freedom fighters". Iraq is several problems. Continuing that action may make things worse, but it definitely won't make it better. As Doug says, if the only result of staying is the loss of more American lives, what's the point? Put those resources into intelligence and military precision strike teams, and contain the problem. Because in a democracy, that is a losing proposition. You cannot lock down terror at home without imposing the sort of measures which will alienate the voters so much that they will vote someone who ISN'T cracking down on them personally so much. No. The point that I've made over and over in the last few years is that you can't lock down terrorist attacks AT ALL. If someone really wants to kill innocents, they will. There is, ultimately, not a damn thing you can do about it at the front line. What you do is put out the message that it will not make you change a damn thing, you will keep living your lives. This is where Spain, Britain and Israel get it so right, and America has got it so wrong. You try to negate the environments that foster terrorism (something Britain may be dropping the ball on through some odd non-inclusive policies), you do the best police work you can, you keep blowing up the training camps out in the deserts, and then you just get on with your lives. Compare with Iran: the same cycle has started. Staring down, gradual ramping up of pressure. When historically, the only way that has kept the region free of nukes (ignoring Israel's for the purposes of this discussion as they're tactical weapons, not potential terror weapons) has been standoff and tactical bombing or limited strike at specific sites. Nation-states usually act more logically than Terrorists (excluding insane dictatorships), simply because they are an easily located physical entity. Even Iran's recent statements are really not so illogical if you consider the domestic situation. Sure. But they're not far off an insane dictatorship. Wouldn't take much to push out the hard-liners in charge and replace them with even- harder-liners. (Heck, look at America's Prohibition era for the sort of mess even a reprisentative Democracy can get into when it tries to impress allied countries with its morality) Sure thing. Agree there! (Might say the "War On Drugs" since the prohibition laws of the 1920's is the same deal, tbh). And well, this time the Iranians have deacent air defences. But nothing which could stop an Isralie long range missile with a conventional warhead. Wonder when (and as far as I and quite a few others are concerned, it pretty much IS when...) Or a couple of well-placed smart bombs from F-117s or B-2s, or covert special forces, if the US do the right thing and Iran don't. That's my point. THAT'S how to deal with the countries (ins
RE: Is it just me....
> -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On > Behalf Of Doug Pensinger > Sent: Sunday, March 19, 2006 7:45 PM > To: Killer Bs Discussion > Subject: Is it just me > > Is it just me or does anyone else see that the major reason there is an > insurgency in Iraq is our (the U.S.) pressence? I don't see it as that black and white. Our presence helped fuel the insurgence. The stupidity of the initial policy gave it a chance to flourish and grow. But, I don't see our leaving as ending it. At the present time, the US is the controlling force in Iraq. It does have trouble suppressing the insurgency, no doubt, but it prevents other forces from being dominant. The present goals of the US, getting the Iraq armed forces trained to the point where they can at least hold their own with militias and insurgents and to nudge the political factions into a coalition government. >Everyone seems to agree that Al Qaida is provoking the sectarian violence, >and that they consider the U.S., not Iraq, their enemy. AQ certainly considers the US an enemy. But, they also see moderate Arab governments as enemies, or at least pawns of the US. They are not inherently opposed to the people of Iraq, but they are inherently opposed to Iraq developing into a moderate Arab state, such as Jordan >If we leave, they loose most of their > purpose there and maybe the insurgency goes away. If that happens, and the parliament actually runs the company, then Bush would have succeeded in Iraq. Tom Friedman had two very good columns on Iraq in the last couple of weeks. Unfortunately, he's now premium content at the NY Times, so I can't quote him exactly. In one of his columns he looks at three possible outcomes in Iraq. First, he states that there is still some chance that a coalition government will form, and the Iraqi troops will be well trained enough to be the strongest force in Iraq...at least enough to hold their own against insurgents and militias. This is the best possible outcome. Second, if we withdraw, and the outcome is civil strife/civil war, the middle outcome would be seen. It would be a mitigated disaster, if you would. The Iranian influence on the Shiites would be tempered by that natural Persian/Arab distrust (which goes back centuries). The influence on/acceptability by the Sunni's by AQ would lesson, without the US to hold up as occupiers. The conflict would be bloody, with significant human rights violations by the militia common place (e.g. death squads, mass killings of civilians), but it would probably not draw in other nations. The third alternative is that we sit there and "babysit" the disintegration for years to come. We'll always hope that things will get better, but we'll still be identified as the one to make them worse. Obviously, this analysis tends to lead one to conclude that we can't just stay in Iraq. Yet, it isn't a call for a quick, immediate withdrawal. Rather, it seems to call for a transition from the US being the controlling force to Iraqi forces controlling Iraq. Ideally, of course, it would be the forces belonging to the elected central government. More realistically, both militia power and the power of elected representatives would need to be considered in Iraq. That is probably the best case scenario we can now hope for. Worst case is a civil war that turns very ugly, drawing neighboring countries into the fight. I do not think the Sunni governments around Iraq would stand by and let Sunni civilians be killed by the tens of thousands, for example. One final point: it appears that we finally have competent people on the ground in Iraq. Training the Iraqi military and having an ambassador who actually understands the region are gigantic steps over our initial foolishness. If we implemented the present strategy, if Bush used the post war plan developed by the State Department from the very beginning, it is probable that things would be significantly better than they are now. Indeed, history may show that Bush succeeded, through his arrogance, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. Dan M. ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 21 Mar 2006 at 7:32, Charlie Bell wrote: > > On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: > >> > >> Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the > >> swamp - > >> or at least some portion of it - by leaving. > > > > How much of a portion, however? Most of the groups active in Iraq > > have made it clear that they won't respect borders in what they see > > as an ideological struggle. > > ...and most of those groups aren't capable of operating beyond > borders. They're bandits. That is...surmise. Certainly some of the current groups can't, but that doesn't mean that if they were willing that certain other factions wouldn't be willing to pay for them to go to the "great satan" and do attacks. And some of the groups can, but they chose not to simply because their leadership is quite happy to bleed expendable fighters for the cause relatively locally. Remove that, and they will have to look further afield, because the one they cannnot do is stop acting or they will be deposed by people who WILL act. > > > >>> AndrewC > >>> (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the > >>> subject of terror) > >> > >> Then you should be against engaging in activites that have a > >> tendency to > >> increase the terrorist's numbers and increase their motivation to > >> attack > >> the West and eventually Israel as well. > > > > Israel is and isn't a different situation. > > That we know, but that's not the point Doug was making. > > Lesson learned: invading or militarily suppressing a territory > without any real strategy for rebuilding, or understanding of how the > various factions will act when let off the leash, PROMOTES terrorist > recruitment. That is your interpretation of the facts. Mine is that true ideologically-based terror does not care about national borders, that they will attack anyway - and if they can attack a source closer to their bases, then they will. > Continuing that action may make things worse, but it definitely won't > make it better. As Doug says, if the only result of staying is the > loss of more American lives, what's the point? Put those resources > into intelligence and military precision strike teams, and contain > the problem. Because in a democracy, that is a losing proposition. You cannot lock down terror at home without imposing the sort of measures which will alienate the voters so much that they will vote someone who ISN'T cracking down on them personally so much. > Compare with Iran: the same cycle has started. Staring down, gradual > ramping up of pressure. When historically, the only way that has kept > the region free of nukes (ignoring Israel's for the purposes of this > discussion as they're tactical weapons, not potential terror weapons) > has been standoff and tactical bombing or limited strike at specific > sites. Nation-states usually act more logically than Terrorists (excluding insane dictatorships), simply because they are an easily located physical entity. Even Iran's recent statements are really not so illogical if you consider the domestic situation. (Heck, look at America's Prohibition era for the sort of mess even a reprisentative Democracy can get into when it tries to impress allied countries with its morality) And well, this time the Iranians have deacent air defences. But nothing which could stop an Isralie long range missile with a conventional warhead. Wonder when (and as far as I and quite a few others are concerned, it pretty much IS when...) AndrewC ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 21, 2006, at 6:38 AM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the swamp - or at least some portion of it - by leaving. How much of a portion, however? Most of the groups active in Iraq have made it clear that they won't respect borders in what they see as an ideological struggle. ...and most of those groups aren't capable of operating beyond borders. They're bandits. AndrewC (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the subject of terror) Then you should be against engaging in activites that have a tendency to increase the terrorist's numbers and increase their motivation to attack the West and eventually Israel as well. Israel is and isn't a different situation. That we know, but that's not the point Doug was making. Lesson learned: invading or militarily suppressing a territory without any real strategy for rebuilding, or understanding of how the various factions will act when let off the leash, PROMOTES terrorist recruitment. Continuing that action may make things worse, but it definitely won't make it better. As Doug says, if the only result of staying is the loss of more American lives, what's the point? Put those resources into intelligence and military precision strike teams, and contain the problem. Compare with Iran: the same cycle has started. Staring down, gradual ramping up of pressure. When historically, the only way that has kept the region free of nukes (ignoring Israel's for the purposes of this discussion as they're tactical weapons, not potential terror weapons) has been standoff and tactical bombing or limited strike at specific sites. Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 19 Mar 2006 at 21:31, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Andrew wrote: > > > > Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other > > western counties. > > > > All in all, if they want to die for the cause, I'd prefer they did so > > over there. > > Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the swamp - > or at least some portion of it - by leaving. How much of a portion, however? Most of the groups active in Iraq have made it clear that they won't respect borders in what they see as an ideological struggle. > > AndrewC > > (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the > > subject of terror) > > Then you should be against engaging in activites that have a tendency to > increase the terrorist's numbers and increase their motivation to attack > the West and eventually Israel as well. Israel is and isn't a different situation. It is, because the portion of the violence between palestian nationalists and Isralies is not, has never been and never will be religious at its heart. It is, quite simply, about land and water rights. Politics dictates, to a large extent, the ebb and flow of this violence. It isn't, because seperately from that, there are terrorist groups who operate under a number of banners and who attack Israel. These groups have a fairly consistant attack rate, regardless of the political situation. They motivation is ideological. There's a pretty simple lesson there. AndrewC Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Andrew wrote: Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other western counties. All in all, if they want to die for the cause, I'd prefer they did so over there. Iraq is to terrorists what a swamp is to mosquitos. We dry up the swamp - or at least some portion of it - by leaving. AndrewC (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the subject of terror) Then you should be against engaging in activites that have a tendency to increase the terrorist's numbers and increase their motivation to attack the West and eventually Israel as well. -- Doug ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
Damon wrote: However, I doubt pulling up stakes and heading home will mean an end to the insurgency either; the current Iraq government doesn't seem to have a whole lot of legitimacy, and I think if we left, the attacks will continue to discredit the government, which I think is perceived as being a US puppet... But if you conclude that we have failed or will fail despite our best effort, what difference will it make other than more dead American kids? What is the benefit of staying? -- Doug Cut our losses maru ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On Mar 20, 2006, at 1:54 PM, Andrew Crystall wrote: Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other western counties. Who is *they*? Charlie ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
On 19 Mar 2006 at 17:45, Doug Pensinger wrote: > Is it just me or does anyone else see that the major reason there is an > insurgency in Iraq is our (the U.S.) pressence? Everyone seems to agree > that Al Qaida is provoking the sectarian violence, and that they consider > the U.S., not Iraq, their enemy. If we leave, they loose most of their > purpose there and maybe the insurgency goes away. Sure. Because then they'll come to America. And England. And other western counties. All in all, if they want to die for the cause, I'd prefer they did so over there. AndrewC (Do remember, I'm Jewish, Zionist and have VERY strong views on the subject of terror) Dawn Falcon ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me....
At 08:45 PM 3/19/2006, you wrote: Is it just me or does anyone else see that the major reason there is an insurgency in Iraq is our (the U.S.) pressence? Everyone seems to agree that Al Qaida is provoking the sectarian violence, and that they consider the U.S., not Iraq, their enemy. If we leave, they loose most of their purpose there and maybe the insurgency goes away. Of course. But then we're in a double-edged sword here too: As long as we're there, there will be an insurgency, but we have to stay there to help maintain order... However, I doubt pulling up stakes and heading home will mean an end to the insurgency either; the current Iraq government doesn't seem to have a whole lot of legitimacy, and I think if we left, the attacks will continue to discredit the government, which I think is perceived as being a US puppet... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Skybow's Tiger Late -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.1.385 / Virus Database: 268.2.5/284 - Release Date: 3/17/2006 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
I had no problems accessing CNN, BBC, and a handful of other regular websites from my Blackberry, but a few were inaccessabile. Regular net seems OK, though... Damon. Damon Agretto [EMAIL PROTECTED] "Qui desiderat pacem, praeparet bellum." http://www.geocities.com/garrand.geo/index.html Now Building: Esci's BMP-1 -- No virus found in this outgoing message. Checked by AVG Anti-Virus. Version: 7.0.323 / Virus Database: 267.9.0/50 - Release Date: 7/16/2005 ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:40 PM, Dave Land wrote: Actually things seem to have come back, but for about an hour or so, nada. I poked around a little and can't seem to find anything that indicates that there were any major increases in packet loss over the past couple of hours. In particular, http://www.internettrafficreport.com/ doesn't show any problems in North America since a slight blip around lunch, pacific time. It's likely regional. I'm not sure where a lot of the net traffic from around here is routed -- it could just as easily be Vegas as Phoenix -- or it could be something nearer, at the ISP itself. It's weird how random it seems to be, though. My own site (served from California) is reachable, but the ISP's portal for users (hosted who knows where, but possibly either NY or MN) is out. That's just one example of the apparently random nature of it. Oh well. According to the ITR site there are several routers that are out right now, including one in Texas. If our local stuff is channeled via Phoenix through one of those points maybe that's the cause. …Huh, and now it's back again. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 11:05 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Dave Land wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Or is half the net dark in the US right now? I can't seem to get to CNN, the NYTimes, or, most disturbingly, Mr. Cranky or The Filthy Critic. How'm I supposed to get movie reviews I can trust … ? It's just fine from San Jose, CA. So you know the way from San Jose? From, to, around, through, and so forth. Been here about 16 years, so yeah, you could say I know the area a bit. Actually things seem to have come back, but for about an hour or so, nada. I poked around a little and can't seem to find anything that indicates that there were any major increases in packet loss over the past couple of hours. In particular, http://www.internettrafficreport.com/ doesn't show any problems in North America since a slight blip around lunch, pacific time. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:57 PM, Dave Land wrote: On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Or is half the net dark in the US right now? I can't seem to get to CNN, the NYTimes, or, most disturbingly, Mr. Cranky or The Filthy Critic. How'm I supposed to get movie reviews I can trust … ? It's just fine from San Jose, CA. So you know the way from San Jose? Actually things seem to have come back, but for about an hour or so, nada. -- Warren Ockrassa, Publisher/Editor, nightwares Books http://books.nightwares.com/ Current work in progress "The Seven-Year Mirror" http://www.nightwares.com/books/ockrassa/Flat_Out.pdf ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
On Jul 20, 2005, at 10:43 PM, Warren Ockrassa wrote: Or is half the net dark in the US right now? I can't seem to get to CNN, the NYTimes, or, most disturbingly, Mr. Cranky or The Filthy Critic. How'm I supposed to get movie reviews I can trust … ? It's just fine from San Jose, CA. Dave ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it Just Me? Re: Thank Goodness
Referring to a subject line on http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13579-2003Dec18.html on 19 Dec 2003, John D. Giorgis wrote: > O.k., is it just me, or am I the only person who read the > subject line "Thank goodness" and saw the words "in case you > haven't heard the good news" and instantly assumed that the link > provided would be to this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16589-2003Dec19.html > I mean, a dangerous State deciding to give up chemical and > biological weapons, as well as a nuclear weapons program so as > to join the rest of the world in the international community. to which "ritu" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> replied on 21 Dec 2003: Can't answer for the others but I'd have thought that the bigger news would obviously be your own judiciary protecting your fundamental rights from your government's excesses. I think John was being patriotic and trying to be diplomatic. * In the first case, that of a court ruling that an American citizen seized on U.S. soil cannot be held indefinitely in military custody, John is, I think, patriotically presuming that the US government, in this case the judicial branch, will protect American citizens against enemies. I hear an unspoken and patriotic `of course, the judical branch will protect Americans against a different branch of government.' I am sure that John figures that if by some computer error, he were mistakenly arrested as a `sleeper' with a very good disguise, he would be out of prison with a year or two, and that it would never matter to him ever in his life that he would have to answer the question of forms `have you ever been arrested' with a `yes'. * In the second case, that of Libya agreeing to inspections by a UN agency, John is, I think, trying to be diplomatic. John did not mention the UN in his comment. As you know, many Americans are against the US depending on the UN for security. John's form of comment comes across to me as his way of softening his statement of support for the UN and for international inspectors. -- Robert J. Chassell Rattlesnake Enterprises http://www.rattlesnake.com GnuPG Key ID: 004B4AC8 http://www.teak.cc [EMAIL PROTECTED] ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
RE: Is it Just Me? Re: Thank Goodness
John D. Giorgis wrote: > At 11:36 PM 12/19/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: > >In case you hadn't heard the good news... > > > >http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13579-2003Dec18.html > > O.k., is it just me, or am I the only person who read the subject line > "Thank goodness" and saw the words "in case you haven't heard the good > news" and instantly assumed that the link provided would be > to this article: > http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16589-2003Dec19.html > I mean, a dangerous State deciding to give up chemical and biological > weapons, as well as a nuclear weapons program so as to join the rest of the > world in the international community.All of that is somehow not the > "thank goodness - good news" story of the day? Can't answer for the others but I'd have thought that the bigger news would obviously be your own judiciary protecting your fundamental rights from your government's excesses. > I just don't get it sometimes. I seem to be in the same boat - have no idea why the Libyan development is supposed to be more important than the ruling in the Padilla case. :) Ritu ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it Just Me? Re: Thank Goodness
On Sat, 20 Dec 2003 09:09:09 -0500, John D. Giorgis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: At 11:36 PM 12/19/2003 -0800 Doug Pensinger wrote: In case you hadn't heard the good news... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A13579-2003Dec18.html O.k., is it just me, or am I the only person who read the subject line "Thank goodness" and saw the words "in case you haven't heard the good news" and instantly assumed that the link provided would be to this article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16589-2003Dec19.html I mean, a dangerous State deciding to give up chemical and biological weapons, as well as a nuclear weapons program so as to join the rest of the world in the international community.All of that is somehow not the "thank goodness - good news" story of the day? I just don't get it sometimes. Did I say that that was not good news? Personally though, the integrety of the constitution is more important. I must admit that it proves that the Bush administration is capable of solving problems diplomatically. We could give credit to the Brits I suppose. 8^) -- Doug GSV That's a Joke, Son ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it Just Me? Re: Thank Goodness
On Sat, Dec 20, 2003 at 09:09:09AM -0500, John D. Giorgis wrote: > I just don't get it sometimes. You can say that again! -- Erik Reuter http://www.erikreuter.net/ ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
Re: Is it just me?
In a message dated 11/16/2003 6:25:14 PM US Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > ...or is there anyone else who feels a little sick to read "christian > dreams of murder" 20-30 teams in his Brin-Inbox?? > > Please folks, let's change the title of this discussion. P.S. I haven't been reading messages with this title. William Taylor ___ http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
