[Winstonm]

Quote

A "precipitate withdrawal" would result in a bloodbath, destabilization of _______, would embolden our enemies and result in more war not less, said. _______"

Fill in the blanks.

[cherdano]

Google knows Nice quote.

[kenrexford]

Neither was wrong. Both may be ignored.

Both may have been crazy, evil, selfish, corrupt, stupid, political hacks.

But, neither was wrong. Both may be ignored. Lots of equally crazy, evil, selfish, corrupt, stupid, and political hacks, only more ignorant, may again win the day.

Then, we will do it all over again.

I wonder where next time...

=================================

During his time in power Pol Pot instigated an aggressive policy of relocating people to the countryside in an attempt to purify the Cambodian people as a step toward a communist future. The means to do this included the extermination of an estimed 1 million to 2 million people disposed of in mass graves (quotes include the CIA, Amnesty International, and the very same Pol Pot, who quoted approx. 1 million), seen as intellectuals and other "bourgeois enemies." In 1979, he fled to the woods after an invasion by neighbouring Vietnam which led to the collapse of the Khmer Rouge government. Pol Pot, along with Adolf Hitler, Mao Zedong and Joseph Stalin, is today regarded as one of the foremost mass murderers of the 20th Century.
North Korea conducted an underground nuclear explosive test on October 16, 2006. The estimated yield of the test was less than one kiloton.
In a roundtable discussion with the United States and China in Beijing on April 24, 2003, North Korean officials admitted for the first time that they possessed nuclear weapons. Furthermore, North Korean officials claim to have reprocessed spent fuel rods and have threatened to begin exporting nuclear materials unless the United States agrees to one-on-one talks with North Korea.
Tensions between the United States and North Korea have been running especially high since, in early October of 2002, Assistant Secretary of State James Kelly informed North Korean officials that the United States was aware that North Korea had a program underway to enrich uranium for use in nuclear weapons. Initially North Korea denied this, but later confirmed the veracity of the US claim. In confirming that they had an active nuclear weapons program, they also declared the Agreed Framework nullified.

=================================================

Sounds very interesting. Iran with nuclear weapons? Someone popping up to slaughter millions of Shiites, Sunni's, and Kurds? Problems transcending the area?

=================================================

Do people forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait?

=================================================

One radical thought...

When WWI ended Germany's ideas, we left them weak but resolved. They came back. WWII was a do-over. What succeeded the second time? Permanence, at least for a while (so far). How? Instead of glumping separate people together (like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, USSR), we broke them up (E. Germany, W. Gemany).

Maybe we need to undo this mess in Iraq?

[Al_U_Card]

By religious or ethnic or political (tribal) or.....???

Ok so maybe the Kurds are distinct.....but they have OIL!

Ok so maybe the Sunni are distinct...but they have MONEY!!!

Ok so maybe the Shia are distinct....but they have the NUMBERS!!!

Looks like you need some kind of a tripartite, power sharing system...wonder where you might find an example of that?

[Gerben42]

Quote

Do people forget that Iraq invaded Kuwait?

And how is that the fault of the people living there now? Weren't the responsible leaders hung?

Quote

Sounds very interesting. Iran with nuclear weapons? Someone popping up to slaughter millions of Shiites, Sunni's, and Kurds? Problems transcending the area?

Like the former USSR, Iran is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons. Everyone knows that if you use nukes, that is the end of your own country. Besides is their ANY proof that Iran is enriching Uranium to weapons-grade constitution (needing other machines than enrichment for power plants) rather than just for nuclear power? It sounds a bit like "we don't like you and you enrich Uranium so it must be for weapons, see that is why we don't like you", which is circular logic.

Quote

we broke them up (E. Germany, W. Gemany).

East- and West-Germany were not really seperate groups until split. Similarly for North- and South-Korea. In both situations you were put in the country on whatever side of a from a population-dynamical point of view arbitary division you happened to live.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 2 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

One radical thought...

When WWI ended Germany's ideas, we left them weak but resolved.  They came back.  WWII was a do-over.  What succeeded the second time?  Permanence, at least for a while (so far).  How?  Instead of glumping separate people together (like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, USSR), we broke them up (E. Germany, W. Germany).

And I thought that your bidding theories were inane...

You are confusing two very different issues here:

1. Many people argue that multi-ethnic states are inherently unstable. There are numerous examples where large multi-national empires collapsed into a series of feuding states under the pressure of romantic nationalism. The end days of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and the Ottoman Empire involved a series of incredibly ugly wars. The UK's recent experiences with Scots nationalists is a more recent (and more peaceful example). In many cases, mass population transfers and other forms of ethnic cleansing were used to consolidate territory. I would argue that the mass population exchanges between Turkey and Greece in the 1920s are probably one of the best examples where this type of tactic stabilized a set of borders.

2. Germany was assembled from a series of independent states. There are enormous cultural, political, religious, and linguistic differences across Germany. Bavaria is very different from Prussia. No one can understand Kolsch or how the locals can drink that nasty thin beer of theirs. However, the partition of Germany at the end of WWII had nothing to do with the internal politics between the different states. Rather, this was a simple reflection of the fact that the Soviets conquered half the territory while the US/England/France seized the other half. (As I recall, the English / France / American occupation Zones were loosely based on some of the traditional boundaries. For example, the American occupation Zone was - essentially - Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemburg, and Hessen). I don't believe that the boundaries between the East and West were based on any real historical precedent. Perhaps, Gerben or Arend can provide some details.

The "conventional wisdom" about the stability in post war Europe focuses on sustained investment in economic reconstruction and political integration.

[Al_U_Card]

Hmmmn.

Now Nixon said he was NOT a crook.....

W has said he is the "decider".....

I guess we know where that leaves us....

[cherdano]

hrothgar, on May 2 2007, 09:27 AM, said:

kenrexford, on May 2 2007, 03:12 PM, said:

One radical thought...

When WWI ended Germany's ideas, we left them weak but resolved.  They came back.  WWII was a do-over.  What succeeded the second time?  Permanence, at least for a while (so far).  How?  Instead of glumping separate people together (like Yugoslavia, Iraq, Palestine, USSR), we broke them up (E. Germany, W. Germany).

And I thought that your bidding theories were inane...

You are confusing two very different issues here:
(...)

2. Germany was assembled from a series of independent states. There are enormous cultural, political, religious, and linguistic differences across Germany. Bavaria is very different from Prussia. No one can understand Kolsch or how the locals can drink that nasty thin beer of theirs. However, the partition of Germany at the end of WWII had nothing to do with the internal politics between the different states. Rather, this was a simple reflection of the fact that the Soviets conquered half the territory while the US/England/France seized the other half. (As I recall, the English / France / American occupation Zones were loosely based on some of the traditional boundaries. For example, the American occupation Zone was - essentially - Bavaria, Baden-Wurttemburg, and Hessen). I don't believe that the boundaries between the East and West were based on any real historical precedent. Perhaps, Gerben or Arend can provide some details.

The "conventional wisdom" about the stability in post war Europe focuses on sustained investment in economic reconstruction and political integration.

I think enormous is an overstatement. A true Bavarian from Munich would never order a Kolsch, but if you gave him the choice between a random English "beer", a Kolsch or a lemonade, I am sure he wouldn't even think a second before taking on the Kolsch (well maybe a few seconds until he has emptied the glass, complained it is so small, and asks for a new one)... On a more serious note, partly due to the big stream of refugees coming from the Eastern parts after WWII, there is hardly any cultural, religious, ... homogeneity among the local population anywhere in Germany anymore. I think the cultural differences between different parts of the US are a lot bigger.

The division of Germany was decided before the end of the war in the conference at Jalta (February 1945) among the US, UK and USSR. I doubt Churchill and Stalin cared much about trying to stabilize Germany by dividing it up, they were just fighting about their respective zones of influence in post-war Europe. There would have been little reason to split off lower Saxony (West Germany) from Saxony or Brandenburg (East Germany) for ethnical, cultural, religious etc reasons.

I prefer the bidding theories, too.

Arend

[mike777]

Are the Turks becoming integrated into German society or still seperate?

Is the Muslim voting public becoming a large and powerful voting block as they are in France yet?

Are children of Turks born in Germany's Hospitals automatic citizens at birth, if not when? Must they pass some kind of test to become a citizen despite being born on German soil?

[Aberlour10]

mike777, on May 2 2007, 04:58 PM, said:

Are children of Turks born in  Germany's Hospitals automatic citizens at birth, if not when? Must they pass some kind of test to become a citizen despite being born on German soil?

It is possible since January 2000, but there are two strict conditions:
-one or both parents have been living in Germany for more than 8 years
-he/she has the legal permit of residence.

[Winstonm]

Quote

Like the former USSR, Iran is not stupid enough to use nuclear weapons.

Not only that, but Iran signed the nuclear nonproliferation agreement, which allows inspections.

Israel and Pakistan did not sign.

And wasn't it Iraq who started the war with Iran, as well?


In this whole sordid Afghanistan/Iraq episode, there has been too little reporting of facts and too much reliance on sloganizing. I put the fault squarely at the feet of the U.S. new media for becoming no more than government spokesman instead of journalists.

[mike777]

Just look at the reporting about the mass marches yesterday.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands marched but what exactly for, who knows.

Something about immigration but darn if I saw reported exactly who the marchers were and what they wanted.

I know there was a riot in LA but again what the heck were the Marches all about, who knows.

[Winstonm]

mike777, on May 2 2007, 08:29 PM, said:

Just look at the reporting about the mass marches yesterday.

Tens if not hundreds of thousands marched but what exactly for, who knows.

Something about immigration but darn if I saw reported exactly who the marchers were and what they wanted.

I know there was a riot in LA but again what the heck were the Marches all about, who knows.

Yes, but I bet you were told who was tossed off American Idol and who The Survivor finalists are - can't interrupt that kind of important information with something so mundane as a demonstraion or a riot.

[kenrexford]

hrothgar, on May 2 2007, 10:27 AM, said:

And I thought that your bidding theories were inane...

You are confusing two very different issues here:

Ah! But that was the point.

When someone points out that Bush said something very similar to what Nixon said, the wow factor seems to be two-fold. First, an ad hominum, non-sequitur argument (Nixon was a bad man, George said the same thing as Richard, George is a bad man, both must be wrong because both were bad men).

The second wow factor is to suggest that Iraq is simply history repeating itself, in a bad way again, without any reflection upon the intricacies of the situation.

I find it particularly amusing to make arguments how the division of Germany did not reflect specific cultural divisions. Does anyone remember that the "no fly zones" was the 1990's Clinton approach to the Iraq problem? Relatively random lines drawn straight across the country. Didn't we actually try this, sort of?

The problem has no solution that I could offer, as I know far too little about what is really going on and because I have little expertise in multi-national concerns.

That being said, it seems fairly obvious that one reality is undeniable. Iraq was held together, kept from bursting internally by internal stresses and kept from being meddled with by external forces, by a man and his followers. That man and his followers decided multiple times to cross borders, both into Iran (our idea) and into Kuwait (his idea). We eventually took him out.

However, you cannot remove a failing dam without water going everywhere, especially if people are waiting with buckets to throw more water into the mess. If the dam must go, you better have a plan for the water. If the am is already gone, there's no sense complaining about the water or pretending it is not there.

Two sides have been making arguments on this, it seems. One is standing there getting terribly wet, without many good ideas how to stop all the water, let alone the people throwing more water into the problem. The other side liked the idea of removing the dam, but they now just want to point to all the water everywhere and argue that somehow that was not expected, with no plan for stopping the flowing.

[Winstonm]

Quote

W has said he is the "decider".....

With aplogies to The Monkees (I'm a Believer)

Winning wars is only true in fairy tales
once you start you can never stop
need a plan to exit
get ourselves out of this mess
Can't hold our breaths waiting for a Cheney confess


Then I saw his face, yes he's the decider,
Not a trace of truth in his mind
It must be tough - mmmmm
To be the decider
He thinks he should guide us
for all time

[kenrexford]

A few years ago, a client of mine was at a local bar with his two brothers. All three were the biggest, baddest guys I've known. Next to Leroy Brown.

Anyway, they were drunk, as usual, and ready for a fight. Someone bumped someone, or someone hit on the wrong someone, or whatever. A fight broke out.

This fight spilled over into the rest of the bar. A complete riot started. The bar was in such a mess that law enforcement from the entire county showed up -- everyone, including police, sheriffs, and highway patrol. Dozens of arrests. People taken to the hospital.

My client, and his two brothers, however, were never arrested or charged. They had started the mess, but they left just in time.

Sure, they had an excellent exit strategy. Just leave. That's an easy exit strategy.

Read into this what you want.

[hrothgar]

kenrexford, on May 3 2007, 03:11 PM, said:

I find it particularly amusing to make arguments how the division of Germany did not reflect specific cultural divisions.  Does anyone remember that the "no fly zones" was the 1990's Clinton approach to the Iraq problem?  Relatively random lines drawn straight across the country.  Didn't we actually try this, sort of?

The official explanation for the Northern and Southern no-fly zones was protecting ethnic populations in these areas.

The Northern no fly zone was established to protect Kurds
The Southern no fly zone was established for Shia and "Marsh Arabs"

You're quite that the no fly zones were delineated using straight lines. Some would argue that there the advantages in creating a well defined border outweigh those associated with precisely following demographic boundaries.

[Al_U_Card]

Kind of like state boundaries. They can follow geographic topography (rivers etc.) or like the 4 corner states....just lines in the sand. But look at places where ethnicity drew the boundaries. Tribalism leads to diversity. Time leads to homogeniety. Let them sort it out. Its their heritage, including the oil.

Stop the insane power-mongers from killing more innocents. Write your congressperson and tell them to get the hell out of hell.....before you are permanently detained. (If you die in hell, are you required to stay?)

[Winstonm]

Quote

Write your congressperson and tell them to get the hell out of hell.....before you are permanently detained.

It is really getting strange when making anti-war comments on a public forum such as this can usher in vague sensations of apprehension - that taking a position in opposition to the administation's makes you feel at some level to be taking personal risk.

But maybe there are legitimate reasons to feel this way.

Congress has granted these powers to the executive. This is U.S. law:
The only reason you or I are not in Guatanamo right now, cut off from all judicial rights, is that the president has not yet decided to send us there;
The only reason the National Guard is not running your city according to martial law is that the president has not yet decided to do so.

Don't believe it? Look it up.

[Al_U_Card]

Here, in Canada, after the Westmount bombings and the diplomat kidnappings/murder in 1970, Pierre Trudeau declared the War Measures Act. It has a time limit and numerous safeguards so as not to be overly abused. Many suspected "terrorists" were arrested and held without charges for several days and weeks. It was only years later that it came out that one of the "separatist-leaning" Quebec politicians was actually a federal government informant......

Politics is like a box of chocolates....whatever you get, if you get too much of it, it will likely make you sick in no time.