|
illrepute posted:Would you consider yourself a pro-imperialist? No, but I'm sure some would frame it that way. Halfway through the genocide in Rwanda, Clinton said "Whether we get involved… in the end must depend on the cumulative weight of the American interests at stake.” That may not be the textbook definition of imperialism, but it comes from the same thought process in my opinion. I think "imperialism" isn't a root cause, but a symptom of a broader aspect of foreign policy that needs to be stamped out. The concept that our own interests outweigh everyone elses, and that we don't have to take into context what that does to regions where we promote our interests via action or inaction. And I don't see it as the government doing this behind closed doors maliciously, I think it's something the American people support. Of course, like in Iraq, there was plenty of poking and prodding in getting the majority to call for an Iraqi invasion and the removal of Saddam, but American exceptionalism and rhetoric about taking care of our own first isn't something politicians make up and convince people to believe. You can't get elected to office if you don't push that stuff. It's a policy they are elected to uphold. To use Rwanda as an example, if the majority of Americans stood up and said "end this genocide," and it became a crucial political issue that forced elected officials to weigh what their constituents were saying, then I believe that makes ending the genocide an American interest for those who were in office. We could have sent 5,000 troops to the country, which with securing stadiums and things like that, people including Clinton estimate that it would have saved about half of the Tutsi's. 5,000 soldiers could've saved 400,000 people. That's just as disgusting as any coup, probably more so, and it's a true testament to how undeveloped we are as a culture and a species at this point in history. 400 years from now, people will probably look back on stuff like that the same way we view the dark ages. Rogue0071 posted:This is true if we're talking about Maoist Third Worldists; it is not true as a general statement. It's true when referring to those who think Assad is fighting a just war against the Western powers rather than beating his own people into submission, which is who that tweet was referring to. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 20:29 on Jul 12, 2014 |
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:27
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Xandu posted:And that could definitely be done, but I don't think we can really claim there is a historical basis for doing so. For much its history, Iraq was ruled as one part of a large empire. There was an interesting split between Basra and Baghdad (and later on Mosul), but the concept of Iraq is not really new to the 20th century. People think that doing this will magically get all these people to leave each other alone. Without addressing the root causes they'd probably all just declare war on each other immediately anyway.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Let's frame it like this: Do we know for a fact that if the people that live in the area that is presently defined as Iraq were able to choose their own borders and governments, that there would be peace? No, I don't think we can predict that with the available information. Is there evidence that the Europeans- British and French diplomats carving up the defeated Ottomans- contributed heavily to the problems, and that if that element were not present, it would be one less factor pushing the groups to war?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:29
|
|
|
Then you're an anti-imperialist. Do you support Imperialism when it's not America doing it? No? Then you're a counter-example to your own argument. illrepute fucked around with this message at 20:32 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:30
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Let's frame it like this: Do we know for a fact that if the people that live in the area that is presently defined as Iraq were able to choose their own borders and governments, that there would be peace? No, I don't think we can predict that with the available information. Is there evidence that the Europeans- British and French diplomats carving up the defeated Ottomans- contributed heavily to the problems, and that if that element were not present, it would be one less factor pushing the groups to war? 100 years on, I'm having a difficult time buying that colonialist-drawn borders are a significant factor in today's relations. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and accept the reality of the situation, regardless of borders. Politicians interested in exploiting differences among their population to increase their own power and influence will find a way to do so, regardless of how homogeneous the population is and where the borders are.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:100 years on, I'm having a difficult time buying that colonialist-drawn borders are a significant factor in today's relations. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and accept the reality of the situation, regardless of borders. A broken leg that isn't set properly isn't going to heal properly. Why are you limping? Your leg was broken over two decades ago! It's probably not the main reason that Iraq is imploding. It definitely isn't doing the country any favors.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:36
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Then you're an anti-imperialist. Do you support Imperialism when it's not America doing it? No? Then you're a counter-example to your own argument. You know who I'm referring to. People who establish their identity as anti-imperialists, like those who identify as anarchists or Marxists or whatever. It's like social justice warriors. Everyone should support social justice, so it's not like the response is to be anti-social justice or to point to social justice as a bad thing (which some do), but at a point, it becomes this game of one-upping each other with who can be the most progressive and feel the most superior. That's what you see in people who support North Korea in their war against Western aggression and handwave away footage of barrel bombs falling from helicopters as rebel propaganda in Syria.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:38
|
|
|
I like the idea that the natural borders that exist would reduce conflict, mostly because of the mistaken belief of outsiders that there exist natural borders which they, in their (non) imperial wisdom can recognize in foreign lands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:You know who I'm referring to. People who establish their identity as anti-imperialists, like those who identify as anarchists or Marxists or whatever. It's like social justice warriors. Everyone should support social justice, so it's not like the response is to be anti-social justice or to point to social justice as a bad thing (which some do), but at a point, it becomes this game of one-upping each other with who can be the most progressive and feel the most superior. That's what you see in people who support North Korea in their war against Western aggression and handwave away footage of barrel bombs falling from helicopters as rebel propaganda in Syria. There's a better word for people who act like that. Clowns, and they come from every stripe politically. I'm sure there are plenty of Marxists who don't support Russia annexing Crimea, just as I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Imperialists who actually oppose Imperialism. farraday posted:I like the idea that the natural borders that exist would reduce conflict, mostly because of the mistaken belief of outsiders that there exist natural borders which they, in their (non) imperial wisdom can recognize in foreign lands. Oh, speaking of. So here's the deal: You're right, all borders are unnatural and fake. The thing is, having the people living in that area getting to make up their fake map lines is generally better than outsiders, unless you'd actually like to sit down in this thread and lay out your reasoning for why you think it's better for the UK to have drawn the map of Iraq rather than Iraqis. See you next time! illrepute fucked around with this message at 20:43 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:40
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:100 years on, I'm having a difficult time buying that colonialist-drawn borders are a significant factor in today's relations. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and accept the reality of the situation, regardless of borders. farraday posted:I like the idea that the natural borders that exist would reduce conflict, mostly because of the mistaken belief of outsiders that there exist natural borders which they, in their (non) imperial wisdom can recognize in foreign lands.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
illrepute posted:There's a better word for people who act like that. Clowns, and they come from every stripe politically. I'm sure there are plenty of Marxists who don't support Russia annexing Crimea, just as I'm sure there are plenty of anti-Imperialists who actually oppose Imperialism. It doesn't matter who drew the map, what matters is your mistaken belief that homogeneity is a prerequisite for a country's stability. Always most hilarious in an American as the ones who demand homogeneity in America generally don't receive too warm a welcome in D&D. The only difference between you and Versailles is a slightly more granular vision of the ethnicities you're pretending are monolithic nation ingredients.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:46
|
|
|
farraday posted:It doesn't matter who drew the map, what matters is your mistaken belief that homogeneity is a prerequisite for a country's stability. Always most hilarious in an American as the ones who demand homogeneity in America generally don't receive too warm a welcome in D&D. Cool; when have I said that homogeneity is a prerequisite for a country's stability? Self-determination is that missing pre-requisite, something that is notably missing when the literal British Empire draws your map for you. Iran, right next door, is extremely heterogeneous. In fact, it has many Shi'ite arabs in it, and while the union isn't perfect, it works.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:51
|
|
|
farraday posted:It doesn't matter who drew the map, what matters is your mistaken belief that homogeneity is a prerequisite for a country's stability. Always most hilarious in an American as the ones who demand homogeneity in America generally don't receive too warm a welcome in D&D.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:53
|
|
|
illrepute posted:Cool; when have I said that homogeneity is a prerequisite for a country's stability? Self-determination is that missing pre-requisite, something that is notably missing when the literal British Empire draws your map for you. Iran, right next door, is extremely heterogeneous. In fact, it has many Shi'ite arabs in it, and while the union isn't perfect, it works. quote:it would be one less factor pushing the groups to war? Which groups are those, the kurds, sunni, and shia? You're very phrasing assumes the ethno-determinism you're pretending now not to believe. But go on, keep pretending you only believe in self determinism without ever even trying to examine your pre-cocneptions of what counts as "self."
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
The reason that self-determination is important is because a country's stability largely rests upon the choice of those in the country to imagine themselves as belonging to the imagined "community" of the country. Your entry into that community can only be a willful choice. You cannot convince someone to be an Iraqi, or a Moroccan, or an American; they decide that they either want to be, or do not. Homogeneity, while not necessary for the stability of a country, helps a lot. Ethnic/religious identity is one of the easiest communities to rally around because of the obvious signifiers of that identity (dress, food, traditions, etc.), which makes the shared identity palpable. In comparison, what really defines an Iraqi? There's a reason the country is falling to pieces right now.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 20:58
|
|
|
Deteriorata posted:100 years on, I'm having a difficult time buying that colonialist-drawn borders are a significant factor in today's relations. People have to start taking responsibility for their own actions and accept the reality of the situation, regardless of borders. Why is that hard to believe? Forget everybody else in the region and look *only* at the Kurds. Colonialist borders are the whole reason the Kurds are where they are today. At what point could they have taken responsibility for themselves? 1991 but oops we kinda sold them out Every other nation state can ask much the same question since they've all been governed by strongmen or monarchs/tribal leaders the whole time. It turns out that even revolutions are remarkably easy to subvert by armed groups with tons of easy to come by weapons that the West has been dumping on the region by the planeload for generations now. And part all of the problem there is that those revolutions inevitably involve a ton of different tribal groups and interests that simply wouldn't be there if the borders had been drawn correctly to begin with.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Vermain posted:The reason that self-determination is important is because a country's stability largely rests upon the choice of those in the country to imagine themselves as belonging to the imagined "community" of the country. Your entry into that community can only be a willful choice. You cannot convince someone to be an Iraqi, or a Moroccan, or an American; they decide that they either want to be, or do not. You should re-read Imagined Communities. Nations aren't created through the self actualization of peoples but imposed by elites on diverse populations through the identification and deification of supposed shared virtues at the expense of other aspects of the various integrating populations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:05
|
|
|
farraday posted:You should re-read Imagined Communities. Nations aren't created through the self actualization of peoples but imposed by elites on diverse populations through the identification and deification of supposed shared virtues at the expense of other aspects of the various integrating populations.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:08
|
|
|
This is pretty interesting, but should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Anyone familiar with ORB international in London? They've run what they call a face to face poll with people in Syria. quote:ONE MONTH ON FROM BASHAR AL-ASSAD WINNING RE-ELECTION WITH A WIDELY REPORTED 90% OF THE VOTE, A NEW SURVEY FROM ORB INTERNATIONAL REVEALS THAT JUST ONE IN THREE SYRIANS (35%) BELIEVE THAT THE PRESIDENT AND HIS REGIME BEST REPRESENT THE INTERESTS AND ASPIRATIONS OF THE SYRIAN PEOPLE. Here's the full poll. http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadatatablesjuly2014.pdf Interesting that 4% of the country favored ISIS, and 82% of al-Raqqa favored international intervention. 88% of Idlib favored international intervention, and also had the highest approval for the FSA at 21%. When asked about shortages of medicine, food, water, and electricity, respondents who said "none" in rebel held areas were basically nonexistent. 18% of the country trusted the electoral system in Syria, including only 31% in Damascus. Moaz al-Khateeb also had more overall support than Assad, finishing second behind "current regime." No one gives two shits about the SNC. Volkerball fucked around with this message at 21:22 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:14
|
|
|
There are natural borders though - some of the borders in America (barring our more square states) are based on rivers or mountain ranges, things that would naturally make it difficult for groups to come in contact with each other that are easily definable and recognizable. This means a lot less in the 21st century, obviously, but still. If you were going to organize communities for self defense or mutual benefit it makes sense to stop the territorial claim at a mountain or a giant rear end river. The ones drawn in the middle east are just stupid and shortsighted.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:16
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:If this was the whole truth, Europe would look very different today. Would it now? Would Germany be the obvious result of a imperial ambitions whose borders had shifted on pretty much every side based on the vagaries of international politics? Tell me how the border between Italy and france was drawn i line with national self determination and not political horse trading? Poland? Yeah moving on. Czechoslovakia? True we have the velvet divorce, but on the other hand every other border of the country was hardly self determined. Yugoslavia? The outer borders designed by foreigners the inner borders drenched with blood. So much for democratic self determination. Shall we talk about Greater Hungary? shall we talk about the interbaltic wars that designed and redesigned national borders until finalized by outside powers? Tel me exactly what do you imagine the borders of Europe are? Full Battle Rattle posted:There are natural borders though - some of the borders in America (barring our more square states) are based on rivers or mountain ranges, things that would naturally make it difficult for groups to come in contact with each other that are easily definable and recognizable. This means a lot less in the 21st century, obviously, but still. If you were going to organize communities for self defense or mutual benefit it makes sense to stop the territorial claim at a mountain or a giant rear end river. The ones drawn in the middle east are just stupid and shortsighted. There are indeed natural borders, for example the border between the US and Mexico along the Rio Grande is absolutely "natural". Please do not mistake a border following a geographic feature for it being natural.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:20
|
|
|
farraday posted:Please do not mistake a border following a geographic feature for it being natural. I would think that if you traveled back far enough it wouldn't be hard to find disparate communities on either side of say, the Mississippi. It's not like they didn't talk to the people on the other side of the river just for the hell of it, it's a gigantic river. That's all I mean for 'natural border'. And obviously they're not all that way.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:24
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I would think that if you traveled back far enough it wouldn't be hard to find disparate communities on either side of say, the Mississippi. It's not like they didn't talk to the people on the other side of the river just for the hell of it, it's a gigantic river. That's all I mean for 'natural border'. And obviously they're not all that way. A lot of states on the east coasts borders were like this too because of the Appalachians. Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee all meet at the Cumberland Gap, which was the basically the only passage to the west back in the day.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:31
|
|
|
farraday posted:Would it now? Would Germany be the obvious result of a imperial ambitions whose borders had shifted on pretty much every side based on the vagaries of international politics? A Buttery Pastry fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:36
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:The existence of Poland is in itself evidence that the elites do not have the ability to completely remake people's identities as they wish. The creation of a Polish state after WWI wasn't the elite of the Entente saying to a bunch of Russians and Germans "Hey, you're Poles now", it was them giving the Poles within that territory their own state. Following WWI, the borders were of course even more strictly defined, by Stalin just telling all the Germans to move out. Fascinating. The Entante and Stalin are the key creators of the Polish state even in your own retelling. quote:The creation of the German state was of course a project supported by German nationalist AGAINST the wishes of the ruling class, though in the end Bismarck got his way by making sure the Germany they were trying to create would be one he could control. Which is why during the 1848 revolution King Fredrick Wilhelm the second was given the crown by the people of Germany and he accepted thus paving way for the .. oh wait that didn't happen. And of course it certainly didn't happen that the elites self consciously defined Germany to exclude the Austrians to maintain Prussian domination, a distinction which still exists to this day despite the best efforts of... wait for it... Hitler! farraday fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Jul 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:37
|
|
|
farraday posted:Fascinating. The Entante and Stalin are the key creators of the Polish state even in your own retelling.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:39
|
|
|
Volkerball posted:No, but I'm sure some would frame it that way. Halfway through the genocide in Rwanda, Clinton said "Whether we get involved… in the end must depend on the cumulative weight of the American interests at stake.” That may not be the textbook definition of imperialism, but it comes from the same thought process in my opinion. I think "imperialism" isn't a root cause, but a symptom of a broader aspect of foreign policy that needs to be stamped out. The concept that our own interests outweigh everyone elses, and that we don't have to take into context what that does to regions where we promote our interests via action or inaction. And I don't see it as the government doing this behind closed doors maliciously, I think it's something the American people support. Of course, like in Iraq, there was plenty of poking and prodding in getting the majority to call for an Iraqi invasion and the removal of Saddam, but American exceptionalism and rhetoric about taking care of our own first isn't something politicians make up and convince people to believe. You can't get elected to office if you don't push that stuff. It's a policy they are elected to uphold. To use Rwanda as an example, if the majority of Americans stood up and said "end this genocide," and it became a crucial political issue that forced elected officials to weigh what their constituents were saying, then I believe that makes ending the genocide an American interest for those who were in office. We could have sent 5,000 troops to the country, which with securing stadiums and things like that, people including Clinton estimate that it would have saved about half of the Tutsi's. 5,000 soldiers could've saved 400,000 people. That's just as disgusting as any coup, probably more so, and it's a true testament to how undeveloped we are as a culture and a species at this point in history. 400 years from now, people will probably look back on stuff like that the same way we view the dark ages. The RPF solved the problem just about as quickly as we could have. They did it themselves, and it's for the best.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:42
|
|
|
Full Battle Rattle posted:I would think that if you traveled back far enough it wouldn't be hard to find disparate communities on either side of say, the Mississippi. It's not like they didn't talk to the people on the other side of the river just for the hell of it, it's a gigantic river. That's all I mean for 'natural border'. And obviously they're not all that way. The Mississippi Valley had what appeared to be a coherent culture on both sides of the great river, just as there was a coherent culture on both sides of the Nile. Big rivers and other things of that nature more usually form convenient places for two opponents to set down a line when they've been competing for who could control both sides of such a thing, rather than being where people stop talking to each other of their own accord. About the only places where natural features actually create "natural boundaries" are extremely tall and rugged mountain ranges, where moving across it becomes close to impossible and often there's rather wide stretches of territory on either side of the ridgelines that aren't even long-term habitable without recent technology. And there are very few of these, especially since passes usually pierce through at one point or another for a more reasonable direction of travel (and become flashpoints for conflict in themselves) Volkerball posted:A lot of states on the east coasts borders were like this too because of the Appalachians. Virginia, Kentucky, and Tennessee all meet at the Cumberland Gap, which was the basically the only passage to the west back in the day. This kinda obscures that the mountains just happened to provide a convenient cutoff line for when the western halves of Virginia and North Carolina (now Kentucky and Tennessee) started to get tired of the state governments much farther east ignoring them. The proposed splitting up of those states was often anywhere from dozens of miles east of the eastern side of the Appalachians to dozens of miles west of the western side, and long court and political battles eventually got similar close to middle borders arranged. Most other cross-Appalachian states avoided such issues altogether and remained intact.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
farraday posted:Which groups are those, the kurds, sunni, and shia? You're very phrasing assumes the ethno-determinism you're pretending now not to believe. I asked you a question and you have not answered it. Are you going to? Where in my posts have I demanded homogeneity is necessary for stability? But please, do keep posting angrily about positions I do not hold. You're like Versailles except for- wait, actually, you're exactly like Versailles, because you actually want to keep the borders the Westerners drew with zero input from the population living there, you clown.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:46
|
|
|
A Buttery Pastry posted:What does that have to do with anything? We're talking about nations, that is, ethnic communities. I'm sorry that's just hilarious in every respect. The Entante resurrects Poland, creates it's borders, says "This is Poland the homeland of the Poles." World War. Stalin comes in redesigns the boundries, kills are forces out many of the inhabitants and says "No no this is Poland,the natural homeland of the Poles" And you come along to Say "Well clearly the poles are a distinct and inate ethnic group whose composition and homogeneity is in no way created or enforced by figures of authority but wells up from some internal polishness." illrepute posted:I asked you a question and you have not answered it. Are you going to? Where in my posts have I demanded homogeneity is necessary for stability? You do not hold? than go ahead and clarify who are these anonymous and mysterious "groups" which are forced to fight due to the lines on the map. Also Versailles was about redrawing border you clown. the ones outside of Europe tended to follow Imperial design but Eastern Europe was carved up with an eye toward supposedly inate blocks of ethno-nationalism which hes done wonders for that half of the continent. If you had half the education you pretended you'd accuse me of being Metternich enforcing a reactionary detente.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 21:59
|
|
|
farraday posted:You do not hold? than go ahead and clarify who are these anonymous and mysterious "groups" which are forced to fight due to the lines on the map. Right now the government, ISIS, and the autonomous Kurdish region control separate parts of the country. Kurdistan is almost certainly going to leave once a future referendum comes to pass. ISIS controls areas that mainly Sunni. The government is supported by areas that are largely Shi'ite. I don't care what idea the factions organize themselves around. There could be one state, there could be five. What matters is that the current arrangement was enforced by people from the outside of the area and is now imploding. quote:Also Versailles was about redrawing border you clown. the ones outside of Europe tended to follow Imperial design but Eastern Europe was carved up with an eye toward supposedly inate blocks of ethno-nationalism which hes done wonders for that half of the continent. If you had half the education you pretended you'd accuse me of being Metternich enforcing a reactionary detente. And you're now defending those borders, that were drawn, which is why you're exactly like the Versailles that happened.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:04
|
|
|
illrepute posted:And you're now defending those borders, that were drawn, which is why you're exactly like the Versailles that happened. Lol. You're talking about how the borders are pushing the three way civil war and simultaneously pretending you're not essentializing ethnicity into inately hostile groups incapable of working within a single state system. Tell me more about how the borders are pushing them to fight isn't an argument for state homogeneity. I'm sure you have a great argument for how you didn't mean what you said or how it isn't fair to take your words and consider them for longer than the half a milisecond it took for you to spew them forth.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:12
|
|
|
farraday posted:Lol. Christ, you're incredibly angry about nothing. You still haven't answered my question, by the way. Where did I say that a country had to be homogeneous for it to be stable? Now, on top of that, I'll add: Where did I say that forces fighting in this civil war are innately-hostile or even that they're entirely based on ethnic identity? Or that they are incapable of working in a one-state system? You are boxing with words you have put into my mouth, and it's time for you to stop hitting yourself.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:15
|
|
|
farraday posted:I'm sorry that's just hilarious in every respect. You seem to think I believe the nation of Poland is somehow tied directly to the land, which is why you think it's such a gotcha that the borders of Poland have moved around so much. It's not though, the fact that nations can be moved, and have been, is a pretty good indicator that the elite does not have some absolute ability to enforce a new ethnicity on a people. What they can do is kill the gently caress out of them, or move them out, so the territory the people used to live in can be inhabited by someone else.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:27
|
|
|
It is far more pleasant to come into this thread for recent content and updates regarding changes in the area than to come in and see pages of argument over definitions or the writer's opinions, with lots of nasty thrown in, usually nasty stuck at the end of a rewording of the last post. Could I invite the thread's readers to talk some about the perception battles in the Iraqi civil war? There has been a lot of posting earlier on about how polished and effective the Islamic State videography and social media propaganda is for example -- that sort of thing may be one of the foundations of their recent success (ease of recruiting, complication of international attempts to understand conditions on the ground). Here's another example from today -- Kurdish media apparatus trying to reframe the capture of the oil fields near Kirkuk. http://rudaw.net/mobile/english/kurdistan/110720141 Previous social uprisings have had their military or political actions supported by framing of the events on the ground (successful agitprop) where slower, less agile or less motivated "great" powers are incapable of matching the messaging. "Great" and local powers both have a sense of the danger of effective messaging, as is seen in lobbying fights in D.C. or local strongmen suppressing the media, but for some reason there is a lot of flailing and an inability to respond once the regional uprising's message gets beyond a certain point. The Islamic State is a problem that way in my opinion because there is so much brutal evil in their actions -- yep will take the position that they are an evil to be opposed -- but there is a lot of justifiable resentment of exploitation and external interference in their message. How can more moderate movements trying to resist exploitation get recruits and get their message out without resorting to brutality and horror as a carrier?
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:40
|
|
|
29 Women killed in a raid in Baghdad. http://news.yahoo.com/gunmen-kill-least-33-raid-baghdad-complex-203144904.html Not much info yet.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 22:56
|
|
|
The situation in Kobani continues to be pretty precarious. Öcalan has now called for a mobilization in support of the defence of Kobani and the PKK have issued a call to arms. The BDP, the largest Kurdish party in Turkey, have announced a mass protest march from the town of Suruç to the Turkish border north of Kobani to protest Turkey's closed border policy that has prevented aid from getting through to Syrian Kurdistan. There have been some reports that they will attempt to cross the border which will undoubtedly cause some conflict. There has been a marked increase in tensions between Kurdish militants and the Turkish gendarmerie over the last few weeks after two protesters were shot dead in Diyarbakir, there has been a lot of rhetoric flying around on both sides so any attempt by PKK supporters to cross over the border will be met with a stern response. Just hope nobody get's shot.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:19
|
|
|
You're angry therefore I'm right. Do you have any other stupid argument gambits to trot out before you slink away? You've used that one twice, maybe third times a charm. Self determination of borders is one of the stupid theoretical ideas that neatly runs aground on the fact it's a god drat moronic thing to do, because voting does not create consensus, it creates majorities. If a majority of people feel x +y is the state and a minority feel y is a state all you'll get is more fighting unless they have some sort of census building organ. The problem isn't the border it's the lack of consensus. Now you can have instances where you can define borders by consensus, but it is the consensus organs themselves which are the key, not the supposed glory of self determination. Despite the fact you don't want to admit it because you haven't put nearly enough thought into your position. It is as facile as saying in 1990 the imposed borders of Yugoslavia were pushing it's inhabitants to fight, so if we give them self determination they will have one less reason to fight. It goes on to pretend to ignore that doing so in the midst of a civil war where extremist sides have specifically heightened tensions the end result is not going to be any sort of consensus, even if you could trust the majority result. Now moving on to you. You have repeatedly stated the groups in Iraq are being pushed to fight by the imposed borders. You are simply incapable of admitting the consequences of that statement because you're bleating refrain of self determinism blinds you to what occurs when it is followed after two centuries of promoting the toxic ideology of ethnic nationalism. Tell me about your most recent successful example of Self determination in South Sudan, are they safer? Healthier? Are you any less likely to blame imperialism now for the situation there? But you're right, you have no specifically said the words that you're advocating homogeneity, it's just the intended and apparently supposed to be unstated result of the tactics you're advocating.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:27
|
|
|
Perhaps the imperialism versus "natural" state argument should have it's own thread, rather than devouring this one. To actually be topical, anyone know how the situation is in Tunisia? Are they still on track to be a fairly successful reformation? Last I've heard were reports of military action against Ansar al-Sharia.
|
|
#
?
Jul 12, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 9, 2024 15:03 |
|
|
Was reading a Washington Post article about how, in the face of the rise of ISIS, it would behoove the west to tacitly back Assad. I remember reading a New Republic expose on Bashar that said that this was exactly his plan. What's the saying, inject jihad into an uprising to poison it?
|
|
#
?
Jul 13, 2014 00:08
|
|
