The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

I think 99% is about 49 pct points high on 1, 3, 4, and 5. Little support for elimination of social safety net, plenty of people want more interference--that is, telling others how to behave. Less taxes, perhaps, but not if coupled with less spending on 1, and abortion--don't even start.

My crazy theory...
 

You see, I think they are undermining chances of democracy by insisting on a single state. It will be easier for democracy to develop in more unified, single-ethnicity states.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Lots of people might agree in theory but not in practice.

For example, I'd love less regulation, but understand that in the wake of a series of corporate scandals, Congress had to do something - and so Sarbanes-Oxley was born, with widespread popular support. I was talking the other day with European counsel, who told me there will be very few European countries seeking listing on US exchanges in the future because of Sarbox, so the regulation is having an economic downside for us.

My proposal, unabashedly based on Gramm-Rudman: for every new regulatory scheme put in place, Congress should have to eliminate one old scheme. Just so we keep trimming the deadwood as we address the issue du jour.

What to do
 

I heard that interview too, and was reminded of it with this discussion. I think the guy was the former US Ambassador to Yugoslavia, saw how things went down there, and has been involved on the ground in Iraq in some capacity. Interesting stuff.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

The better question is what wasn't I smoking, at least through 1997.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

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.

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

Um, I'm thinking that club meant he was smoking everything.

"Smoking? What WASN'T I smoking?"

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

Maybe the Captain will have the conversation with me. I quite agree, and it seems to me that it's one of the problems with the CPB. Karl Rove figured out a way to install Tomlinson and other political hacks. And they're always worrying about their budget, resulting in political pressure. Hence my proposal to try to get fiscal independence and consensus directors.

What to do
 

How long have cons been saying that the Sunnis are going to have to get over losing their power in Iraq? 'Cause that hasn't been working so well.

What to do
 

Galbraith also writes about Iraq fairly regularly for the New York Review of Books.

eta: Here is the last piece he wrote there, I think, from early October.

What to do
 

I think there is a big difference between saying that Turkey needs to accept that the Kurds have a voice and saying that the Sunnis must accept being silenced. Everyone should have a voice. So I do not think the analogy is useful.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

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.

What to do
 

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

My uninformed Opinion........
 

The presence of the oilfields in the North Central portion of Iraq complicates the analysis.

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

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 federal or confederal structure.

S_A_M
[efs]

There is No Joy In Podunkville, For The Mighty Not Bob Has Struck Out.
 

Oh. Uh, sorry, Club.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

Absolutely. No question.


Yes

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.

My uninformed 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.

Government is not the solution it is the problem.
 

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.

What to do
 

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.

What to do
 

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

What to do
 

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.)

The Dems have hit on a strategy
 

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

My uninformed Opinion........
 

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.

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

My uninformed Opinion........
 

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.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

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

What to do
 

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

My uninformed Opinion........
 

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

What to do
 

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.

What to do
 

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.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

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.

What to do
 

If by dismay, you mean a conflict that may very well grow into WWIII, then I think we're positing the same thing.

The scenario I'm looking at is potential war between Iran, Iraq, and Turkey simultaneously against the Kurds. Add in fighting between the Pashtuns and the Urdu in Afghanstan, several of the former Soviet Republics, and Turkey. Then consider a religious struggle between the Wahhabist Saudis and the largely non-citizen Shiite migrant worker population triggering a similar conflict across the Arab states.

Mind you, I'm not predicting all this happening for certain or happening this week. But I do see these potential conflicts keeping the US, and eventually a few other unwanted foreign peacekeeping forces in the ME for the indefinite future.

I was opposed to the invasion of Iraq for the very complicated reason that I fear we have stuck our thimb in a hole in the dike and rather than stopping the leak, we have weakened the whole wall.

What to do
 

See my post above. My bottom line is I see us investing a lot of money, years, and lives keeping the Middle East from lowing us all up, and I blame the invasion of Iraq for being the straw that will eventually break the camel's back if we aren't very careful.

My uninformed Opinion........
 

Exactly. And for some reason they are awful sensitive to criticism and as you can tell from this board, I am not the most diplomatic person.

What to do
 

I share your dismay at the scenario, but think that this is going to occur. I can't see any other eventual outcome. I don't know if it will be sooner or later, but I can't make the leap that we should not have liberated Iraq because its newly-liberated peoples will now be empowered to start to reform boundaries that were arbitrarily and inelegantly imposed upon them.

What to do
 

I saw Saddam Hussein (besides being a sadistic genocidal murderer) as being a major force in reinforcing the Kettle. As long as he was there we were going to get no closer to the ethnic rearrangement. The US by kicking Saddam Hussein out and installing a democracy has let out a lot of steam. Now the people can realize their dreams. It was a huge step in the right direction. However, we can screw up what we have accomplished by trying to stop the Kurds from leaving.

What to do
 

I'm guessing that the admin's lack of support for a Kurdish separation to date has more to do with keeping Turkey happy while we're there than with any long-term philosophy. Once we start seriously pulling out, I think we hear Rice speaking in terms of peoples' rights of self-determination.

What to do
 

Stability? In some ways maybe so. But you then will have the danger of a bunch of ethnically-unified states with serious grudges against neighboring states composed of folks with differing ethnicities.

Also dangerous -- even if they are democracies.

S_A_M

My uninformed Opinion........
 

He is viewed as disloyal to the administration, not necessarily the GOP. Some social conservatives probably think of him as a RINO.

Spanky has the temerity to publicly criticize the Maximum Leader and some of his policies and allies. This is not well-tolerated.

S_A_M

My uninformed Opinion........
 

No problem. Send $5 to Ken Mehlman. I did in 2003 on a whim and now they won't leave me alone. I'm sure it would work for anyone. Next letter I get I'm gonna tape two pennies to the card and send it back.

What to do
 

I hope you are right but I am not hopeful. I told Dr. Rice that even though I supported Gulf War I, I was a little leary about it because I think Kuwait and the Arab part of Iraq will eventually unite. My problem wasn't the absorbtion of Kuwait by Iraq, it was that Saddam Hussein now had control of Kuwait so a psychotic dictator had more territory which was bad.

She told me she thought the future was in establishing the current states in the the middle east and Africa as stable nation states. She also told me that the idea of an Greater Arabia, was crazy, would never happen, and was clearly not in the US's or Isreal's interest. She said that the current lines should not be messed with and as long as there is prosperity the ethnic divisions would die down. I tried to point out that Belgium, which is prosperous, is on the verge of falling apart and same with Canada. And the ethnic divisioins are not nearly as strong in those countrys.

She still thought my idea of national boundaries having to reflect ethnic identities in order to have stability was pretty stupid and crazy.

Although I admit she is ten times smarter than me and infinitely more knowledgeable about the world, I am still arrogant enough to think she is wrong, and think her views if followed, could spell disaster.