The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The presence of the oilfields in the North Central portion of Iraq complicates the analysis.

Absolutely. No question.

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
The Kirkuk area used to be Kurdish, was resettled with Sunni Arabs by Saddam, and the Kurds are now flooding back in droves.

Yes

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man The Kurds want that oil, and the Arabs don't want to give it up. That -- and the likelihood of serious bloodshed in the civil war -- may keep a loosely unified Iraq within some kind of fedeal or confederal structure.

The Kurds have their own flag, a national anthem, their own language and long history of national identity. I believe they also have control of the Oil in their territory. Their separation is inevitable. The Kurds will try and do it peacefully (but they have been fighting for like 70 years for independence and since 1991 they have had an independent state in every conceivable way except not on paper) but I am sure they will resort to violence in the long run if they don't get their way. Kurdistan, in one way or another will become independent. I am sure of it. But that is just my opinion.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by Spanky
The Kurds have their own flag, a national anthem, their own language and long history of national identity. I believe they also have control of the Oil in their territory. Their separation is inevitable. The Kurds will try and do it peacefully (but they have been fighting for like 70 years for independence and since 1991 they have had an independent state in every conceivable way except not on paper) but I am sure they will resort to violence in the long run if they don't get their way. Kurdistan, in one way or another will become independent. I am sure of it. But that is just my opinion.

2. So the next question is, Does the bush administration agree with this? If so, what are they doing to prepare for it? If the Kurds resort to violence, would we care? Is there sufficient oil under their control for us to have an interest in that? Are there any other US interests implicated if the Kurds fight for their independence? What are our interests if the Kurds lose? If they win?

Spanky, please ask Condi for me. Her office won't return my calls, for some reason.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Captain
I am going to admit that I wasn't up to speed on what you were talking about with Dr. Spanks and was merely reacting to his post.

CPB in my mind is a potential first amendment danger to the extent the government can assert some level of control over a major media outlet. I would put the Voice of America in the same camp, though traditionally CPB has had a liberal leaning and VoA has had a conservative leaning.

At the same time, I think CPB has added a lot to public discussion (and has te best kids television on television, too - and disenchantment with violent kids show is I think something both the left and right will often agree on, Tinky Winky aside). So I would like to see a way to insulate CPB. Maybe you could link back to your proposal or briefly summarize it, as I couldn't find it quickly and do not know what to search on.

Run properly, CPB ought to be functioning like institutions of higher learning that rely on government funding, which still have considerable independence.

As originally conceived, the CPB was supposed to be a funding source and no more. Programming decsions were supposed to be in the hands of an independent, academically based, essentially balanced board.

Voice of America was a Cold War program, grown out of a WWII program, designed purely to broadcast propaganda to the "enemies" of America and to encourage other indigenous populations to aid and abet the CIA. It was sort of our version of Tokyo Rose.

I think that CPB has been in general a solid effort, that has become overly politicized in the years since Reagan. VOA is, and always has been IMO, just plain silly.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Secret_Agent_Man
That is because the outside intervention, for good or ill, destroys or alters the existing power structure and patterns of interaction.

Depending on the nature of the intervention, the outside force either imposes a new structure (Balkans 1990s) or leaves it to the natives to work out a new system. The Brits tried to do the former in Palestine pre-WWII, but were never completely successful. The intervention of WWII and the resulting formation of Israel left the locals to work out a new system (with the added bonus of outside tampering). They have been "negotiating" the new structure of relationships for the past sixty years.

In Iraq, it seems to me that we have made some stabs at the former (i.e. we have in many ways imposed certain guidelines at least and enforced a new power structure) -- but given that our presence is inherently temporary, it will end up being the latter.

I would be surprised if a unified Iraq emerged and lasted, say, 30 years. I think it likely that the ethnic, religious, and resource divisions are too strong.

S_A_M

I agree with you on the source of the problem. Unfortunately, I don't think there is a solution. I think your prediction for Iraq is on target, and I think it will wind up iinfecting neighboring countries like Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, and others.

Spanky is correct, at least to the extent he posits that people tend naturally to favor organizing along common cultural grounds, rather than the arbitrary lines drawn by departing colonial powers. Where I part company with him is his feeling that these various ethnic groups will be allowed by the existing givernments in the region to redraw the map without major civil war in multiple countries, leading ultimately to a permanent state of hostilities and more political instability.

I pray that I'm wrong. But I'm going purely on hope and faith.

[Captain]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Spanky is correct, at least to the extent he posits that people tend naturally to favor organizing along common cultural grounds, rather than the arbitrary lines drawn by departing colonial powers. Where I part company with him is his feeling that these various ethnic groups will be allowed by the existing givernments in the region to redraw the map without major civil war in multiple countries, leading ultimately to a permanent state of hostilities and more political instability.

I pray that I'm wrong. But I'm going purely on hope and faith.

This, too, is my number one fear, and why I believe our current policy should focus on easing the transition to "natural" boundaries.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I think your prediction for Iraq is on target, and I think it will wind up iinfecting neighboring countries like Turkey, Iran, Afghanistan, and others.

If all of this leads to ten years of low-grade revolutionary fighting in all of those venues followed by the end of the present arbitrary national bounderies, mightn't that be the pressure reliever that finally brings stability to the ME?

(Not that I'm saying that the war and death that would occur would be good things, but that maybe they're necessary things for that region. I can't see that kind of regrouping happening peacefully.)

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Not Bob
If this refers to your contention that Clinton got a free ride from the press prior to 1997, I'd respond with Whitewater, Whitewater, and Whitewater (seriously -- the NYT started pounding him on it in 1992 before he even won the nomination). Oh, plus Somalia, gays in the military, Hillary and health care reform, and the flip/flop on the middle class tax cut promised in the campaign.

Oh, and the whole "I am Not Irrelevant" pout after the 1994 elections.

Whiff. It refers to when I stopped doing drugs, which drugs, incidentally, a credit for my Clinton vote in 1992.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
2. So the next question is, Does the bush administration agree with this? If so, what are they doing to prepare for it? If the Kurds resort to violence, would we care? Is there sufficient oil under their control for us to have an interest in that? Are there any other US interests implicated if the Kurds fight for their independence? What are our interests if the Kurds lose? If they win?

Like I said before, I am pretty sure that the administration thinks Iraq can remain intact and thinks it is in Americas interest that it does. How much pain they are willing to go through to insure that I don't know. I am also pretty sure the no matter what happens Kurds will eventually win.

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda Spanky, please ask Condi for me. Her office won't return my calls, for some reason.

No one in the administration will talk to me. I have been disloyal and consequently am persona non-grata. Sorry can't help.

[Captain]

Originally posted by Spanky

No one in the administration will talk to me. I have been disloyal and consequently am persona non-grata. Sorry can't help.

You are viewed as disloyal?!?

I could not imagine being as loyal to any party, even an imaginary party run solely by me, as you are to the Republicans.

[Hank Chinaski]

Originally posted by Captain
You are viewed as disloyal?!?

I could not imagine being as loyal to any party, even an imaginary party run solely by me, as you are to the Republicans.

I think he likes to do oral sodomy with his girlfriend.

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
If all of this leads to ten years of low-grade revolutionary fighting in all of those venues followed by the end of the present arbitrary national bounderies, mightn't that be the pressure reliever that finally brings stability to the ME?

(Not that I'm saying that the war and death that would occur would be good things, but that maybe they're necessary things for that region. I can't see that kind of regrouping happening peacefully.)

You mean like the 60 years of fighting has brought stability to Israel and Palestine?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Spanky
No one in the administration will talk to me. I have been disloyal and consequently am persona non-grata. Sorry can't help.

You've been sending them those "conservatives don't spend like drunken sailors" e-mails again, haven't you?

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
You mean like the 60 years of fighting has brought stability to Israel and Palestine?

Well, I guess I'm positing more equal opponents, such as part of Turkey splitting away to rejoin their Kurdish neighbors, to the dismay of the rest of Turkey.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by taxwonk

Spanky is correct, at least to the extent he posits that people tend naturally to favor organizing along common cultural grounds, rather than the arbitrary lines drawn by departing colonial powers. Where I part company with him is his feeling that these various ethnic groups will be allowed by the existing givernments in the region to redraw the map without major civil war in multiple countries, leading ultimately to a permanent state of hostilities and more political instability.

I pray that I'm wrong. But I'm going purely on hope and faith.

Actually I think you misinterpreted me and, unfortunately I don't think you are wrong in your last conclusion. The only thing I think is inevitable is the change. How violent it will be will depend on the government whose jurisdictions includes different ethnic groups or divide ethnic groups. But history has taught us no one likes to give up power. The break up of the Soviet Union was the exception not the rule.

The pull towards ethnic nation states is like boiling water in a sealed pot. As long as the fire is burning the pressure inside the pot will increase. You can keep reinforcing the pot (more repression) or let out steam (give in to ethnic demands). As long as the fire is burning the steam will get out one way or another. You can keep reinforcing the pot but at some point you will run out of material to reinforce the pot and it will explode. The only way to stop the steam from getting out is putting out the fire (and the only way to put out the fire is through ethnic cleansing). Unfortunately I think US policy will be to encourage the respective governments to reinforce the pot.

This happened with Bush One in the Ukraine. When it was still part of the Soviet Union he went to Ukraine and told them they should not get any ideas about national independence. In other words the soviet union would not break. I developed my theory in college so at the time I thought his "Chiken Kiev" speech was completely the wrong move. But it did not occur to me I would be proved right so quickly.

Another example is Kosovo. Eventually Kosovo will leave Serbia and in the longer term it will join with Albania. One way or another that will happen.

[Spanky]

Originally posted by Captain
You are viewed as disloyal?!?

I could not imagine being as loyal to any party, even an imaginary party run solely by me, as you are to the Republicans.

I have written many articles published in papers critisizing the Bush administration on Social issues, spending issues, corporate welfare, farm subsidies and trade. In addition, I have supported candidates in primaries that were taking on the administrations "favorite son". For an administration that values loyalty, I have been a very bad boy.