Note: I did not have to search very hard to get the Fuck,Shit and Dammit stories. Didn't have to work too hard on the good news since it is front page, but still.
It seems like the middle east is going through a period of chaos and conflict that is going to redraw a shit load of borders and power-relationships. Basically 50 years from now the map is going to look very different.
Just my own opinion but it seems like it.
My guess is that what we'll see as the west's power in the ME diminishes and the regimes we've (the collective 'we', as it's certainly not just the US) supported fall or weaken will be similar to the (still ongoing) upheavals and power struggles in post-colonial Africa.
At the moment, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only significant powers in the ME / North Africa that are arguably stable at the moment, and none of those countries seem particularly interested in ensuring stability outside their own borders / power structures. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia have questionable stability, and seem to be at major risk of a revolution / civil war like Egypt or Syria.
Note: I did not have to search very hard to get the Fuck,Shit and Dammit stories. Didn't have to work too hard on the good news since it is front page, but still.
It seems like the middle east is going through a period of chaos and conflict that is going to redraw a shit load of borders and power-relationships. Basically 50 years from now the map is going to look very different.
Just my own opinion but it seems like it.
My guess is that what we'll see as the west's power in the ME diminishes and the regimes we've (the collective 'we', as it's certainly not just the US) supported fall or weaken will be similar to the (still ongoing) upheavals and power struggles in post-colonial Africa.
At the moment, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only significant powers in the ME / North Africa that are arguably stable at the moment, and none of those countries seem particularly interested in ensuring stability outside their own borders / power structures. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia have questionable stability, and seem to be at major risk of a revolution / civil war like Egypt or Syria.
Turkey is less than completely stable. This political scandal is really rocking the establishment to its foundations. It wont lead to war or anything, but a dramatic change in government or perhaps even a coup, though this is unlikely.
I think Iran is quite stable. It already went through its "Green Movement" aborted mini-revolution. Considering the pressure exerted on Iran from the outside, it has been remarkably stable. The easing of sanctions will only help this. And Iran is very active supporting Assad, which is the side of stability through all the bloodshed.
The Saudis, I don't know about them, their system is too opaque to me. But I see no fundamental stability here. An obscenely rich royal family in an hugely oppressive state, whose entire functioning is dependent on oil exports and US protection. A kingdom built on sand, as it were. But they've lasted this long, and I see no immediate threats.
Note: I did not have to search very hard to get the Fuck,Shit and Dammit stories. Didn't have to work too hard on the good news since it is front page, but still.
It seems like the middle east is going through a period of chaos and conflict that is going to redraw a shit load of borders and power-relationships. Basically 50 years from now the map is going to look very different.
Just my own opinion but it seems like it.
My guess is that what we'll see as the west's power in the ME diminishes and the regimes we've (the collective 'we', as it's certainly not just the US) supported fall or weaken will be similar to the (still ongoing) upheavals and power struggles in post-colonial Africa.
At the moment, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only significant powers in the ME / North Africa that are arguably stable at the moment, and none of those countries seem particularly interested in ensuring stability outside their own borders / power structures. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia have questionable stability, and seem to be at major risk of a revolution / civil war like Egypt or Syria.
Turkey is less than completely stable. This political scandal is really rocking the establishment to its foundations. It wont lead to war or anything, but a dramatic change in government or perhaps even a coup, though this is unlikely.
I think Iran is quite stable. It already went through its "Green Movement" aborted mini-revolution. Considering the pressure exerted on Iran from the outside, it has been remarkably stable. The easing of sanctions will only help this. And Iran is very active supporting Assad, which is the side of stability through all the bloodshed.
The Saudis, I don't know about them, their system is too opaque to me. But I see no fundamental stability here. An obscenely rich royal family in an hugely oppressive state, whose entire functioning is dependent on oil exports and US protection. A kingdom built on sand, as it were. But they've lasted this long, and I see no immediate threats.
Yup, that's why I said arguably stable, not stable.
I think Turkey and Saudi Arabia are arguably the most stable states because of outside support for the establishment, and I don't think that's likely to change anytime soon. Too much strategic importance and investment in their stability.
Iran is pretty stable - remarkably, as you noted - but has some fundamental stability issues that are being intentionally exacerbated by outside players. I agree though that easing of sanctions should lead to more stability on their part, and either way I don't foresee them going anywhere fast.
Overall, I don't see any of the three really going down, but if I had to guess it would be Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a lot of similarities to Egypt, but as you said - they've lasted this long.
The problem with Iran right now is the US is on the cusp of fucking over it's own negotiation process and god knows what that will do to Iran.
How credible is this fucking over? I know some republicans and aipac-loyal democrats are on board, but does this pose a real danger to the negotiations? It seems like a bit of a sideshow to me, but I don't follow internal US politics enough to know.
Note: I did not have to search very hard to get the Fuck,Shit and Dammit stories. Didn't have to work too hard on the good news since it is front page, but still.
It seems like the middle east is going through a period of chaos and conflict that is going to redraw a shit load of borders and power-relationships. Basically 50 years from now the map is going to look very different.
Just my own opinion but it seems like it.
My guess is that what we'll see as the west's power in the ME diminishes and the regimes we've (the collective 'we', as it's certainly not just the US) supported fall or weaken will be similar to the (still ongoing) upheavals and power struggles in post-colonial Africa.
At the moment, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only significant powers in the ME / North Africa that are arguably stable at the moment, and none of those countries seem particularly interested in ensuring stability outside their own borders / power structures. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia have questionable stability, and seem to be at major risk of a revolution / civil war like Egypt or Syria.
Turkey is less than completely stable. This political scandal is really rocking the establishment to its foundations. It wont lead to war or anything, but a dramatic change in government or perhaps even a coup, though this is unlikely.
I think Iran is quite stable. It already went through its "Green Movement" aborted mini-revolution. Considering the pressure exerted on Iran from the outside, it has been remarkably stable. The easing of sanctions will only help this. And Iran is very active supporting Assad, which is the side of stability through all the bloodshed.
The Saudis, I don't know about them, their system is too opaque to me. But I see no fundamental stability here. An obscenely rich royal family in an hugely oppressive state, whose entire functioning is dependent on oil exports and US protection. A kingdom built on sand, as it were. But they've lasted this long, and I see no immediate threats.
Yup, that's why I said arguably stable, not stable.
Fair. I wasn't meaning to argue with you, just toss in my own thoughts. The relative power/stability/influence of those nations is something that comes up frequently in my brain.
0
Options
FencingsaxIt is difficult to get a man to understand, when his salary depends upon his not understandingGNU Terry PratchettRegistered Userregular
The problem with Iran right now is the US is on the cusp of fucking over it's own negotiation process and god knows what that will do to Iran.
How credible is this fucking over? I know some republicans and aipac-loyal democrats are on board, but does this pose a real danger to the negotiations? It seems like a bit of a sideshow to me, but I don't follow internal US politics enough to know.
They have possibly over 60 votes, and if they do could override veto. I have my doubts that they necessarily would vote to override if it came to that, bit there is a threat.
The problem with Iran right now is the US is on the cusp of fucking over it's own negotiation process and god knows what that will do to Iran.
How credible is this fucking over? I know some republicans and aipac-loyal democrats are on board, but does this pose a real danger to the negotiations? It seems like a bit of a sideshow to me, but I don't follow internal US politics enough to know.
They have possibly over 60 votes, and if they do could override veto. I have my doubts that they necessarily would vote to override if it came to that, bit there is a threat.
Kaine isn't going to back the sanctions, so that's one democrat the can be added to the no vote category. Just need to make sure the list hits 34 and we're probably good. Also wouldn't they need 2/3 of the House? That might be the trickier one to get the numbers for; especially, if economic issues end up dominating the 2014 midterms (played right, that can pretty much crowd out any other issue and the GOP is looking like they'll be on the losing end of economic issues and could be in worse shape if the party happens to split this year).
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Friday summoned ambassadors to Israel from Britain, France, Italy and Spain to the Foreign Ministry office in Jerusalem for censure. The move was in response to the reprimanding of Israeli ambassadors in four key European states on Thursday over the recent announcement of new construction tenders in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The EU calls our ambassadors in because of the construction of a few houses?
-Netenyahu
Sometimes I wonder why anyone at all listens to these men.
Foreign Minister Avigdor Lieberman on Friday summoned ambassadors to Israel from Britain, France, Italy and Spain to the Foreign Ministry office in Jerusalem for censure. The move was in response to the reprimanding of Israeli ambassadors in four key European states on Thursday over the recent announcement of new construction tenders in the West Bank and East Jerusalem.
The EU calls our ambassadors in because of the construction of a few houses?
-Netenyahu
Sometimes I wonder why anyone at all listens to these men.
Because if you say anything bad about Israel, you are Hitler.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is only going to end in a slow, brutal, bloody grind as Israel takes the land piece by piece and forces the palestinians into more and more squalor till they finally leave.
Israel lacks the stomach/cojones to do it quickly, the desire to not do it at all and no one else will stop them.
The thing that gets me is that Jews are Palestinians. Muslim Palestinians are mostly descended from the previous Christian and Jewish inhabitants before the Muslim invasion that converted, so they're closely related genetically.
}
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
The thing that gets me is that Jews are Palestinians. Muslim Palestinians are mostly descended from the previous Christian and Jewish inhabitants before the Muslim invasion that converted, so they're closely related genetically.
Even the smallest difference is sufficient to fight over.
The thing that gets me is that Jews are Palestinians. Muslim Palestinians are mostly descended from the previous Christian and Jewish inhabitants before the Muslim invasion that converted, so they're closely related genetically.
Even the smallest difference is sufficient to fight over.
The thing that gets me is that Jews are Palestinians. Muslim Palestinians are mostly descended from the previous Christian and Jewish inhabitants before the Muslim invasion that converted, so they're closely related genetically.
Even the smallest difference is sufficient to fight over.
On the other hand, I also kind of wanted them gone already.
And I still don't really want the US involved in a military sense because then any reconstruction problems get blamed on the US and there will be problems galore because Syria is not in a good way.
I'm kind of stunned right now that the situation is so bad and yet I can't think of a lot of ways to address it that don't make things worse.
I guess we hope the conference in Geneva yields some progress.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
It probably won't. Too many sectarians on both sides want a war and Assad refuses to be a part of anything unless he gets to stay, and throw "elections".
This situation will probably stay bloody and horrible for a good long while sadly.
There is a report from Reuters focusing on the northeastern region of Syria that is predominantly Kurdish, and predominantly Kurdish controlled. The interesting prediction/projection I found was towards the end with the idea of Syria becoming a federal entity as a result of this war, instead of the more fanciful idea of Kurdish Syria pushing for separation from Syria.
Also not too surprising that the government is relatively the strongest faction within the war; the possible window of opportunity to deal the regime a deathblow was in the Spring/Summer of 2012 and since its passing they've more or less dug their heels in to stay in power or die trying.
There's a pretty wide geographic/ethnic spread to African Americans. And Wiki says the total population of indigenous Americans is 52 million across the two continents. So yeah, no.
enlightenedbum on
Self-righteousness is incompatible with coalition building.
For years the 30 million Kurds spread across those territories have been the world's largest ethnic group without an independent homeland.
I've seen this before, and it is not true. The Pashtun easily outnumber the Kurds and also lack a homeland (no, Afghanistan doesn't count).
edit: "So Raven"? What is this? I guess I miseed "Bro?" being removed.
idk Afghanistan is 42% Pashtun, and estimates ranged up to 50% prior to the invasion and subsequent movement into N Pakistan. From my little bit of googling Afghan & Pashtun were pretty much interchangeable historically.
For years the 30 million Kurds spread across those territories have been the world's largest ethnic group without an independent homeland.
I've seen this before, and it is not true. The Pashtun easily outnumber the Kurds and also lack a homeland (no, Afghanistan doesn't count).
edit: "So Raven"? What is this? I guess I miseed "Bro?" being removed.
idk Afghanistan is 42% Pashtun, and estimates ranged up to 50% prior to the invasion and subsequent movement into N Pakistan. From my little bit of googling Afghan & Pashtun were pretty much interchangeable historically.
Like is 50% +1 the cut off needed to qualify?
Well Afghanistan is a de facto Pashtun state, yes; much to the chagrin of the other ethnic groups living there. However, there are more Pashtun in Pakistan than all of Afghanistan, and these are constantly chafing under the rule of Islamabad.
The Durand Line (border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) runs straight through Pashtun territory. Afghanistan is like half a homeland- they have to share it with others (and they are really not very good at sharing), and most Pashtun don't even live here.
I'll withdraw my claim that "Afghanistan doesn't count", at least when compared to the Kurds, who have nothing at all.
0
Options
CorehealerThe ApothecaryThe softer edge of the universe.Registered Userregular
The Kurds kinda sorta have northern Iraq, but that's about it, and it's hardly a paradise found given the shitshow that is the rest of Iraq.
There's a pretty wide geographic/ethnic spread to African Americans. And Wiki says the total population of indigenous Americans is 52 million across the two continents. So yeah, no.
Seeing how there's no Uzbekistan-style "Republic of Amerindia" (name pending) in existence, that's what immediately came to mind. The Pashtun too.
There are also 27 million Sikhs, according to Wikipedia, and they're varied ethnically (then again, so are indigenous Americans, right?).
Posts
My guess is that what we'll see as the west's power in the ME diminishes and the regimes we've (the collective 'we', as it's certainly not just the US) supported fall or weaken will be similar to the (still ongoing) upheavals and power struggles in post-colonial Africa.
At the moment, it seems like Turkey, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Israel are the only significant powers in the ME / North Africa that are arguably stable at the moment, and none of those countries seem particularly interested in ensuring stability outside their own borders / power structures. Even Iran and Saudi Arabia have questionable stability, and seem to be at major risk of a revolution / civil war like Egypt or Syria.
Turkey is less than completely stable. This political scandal is really rocking the establishment to its foundations. It wont lead to war or anything, but a dramatic change in government or perhaps even a coup, though this is unlikely.
I think Iran is quite stable. It already went through its "Green Movement" aborted mini-revolution. Considering the pressure exerted on Iran from the outside, it has been remarkably stable. The easing of sanctions will only help this. And Iran is very active supporting Assad, which is the side of stability through all the bloodshed.
The Saudis, I don't know about them, their system is too opaque to me. But I see no fundamental stability here. An obscenely rich royal family in an hugely oppressive state, whose entire functioning is dependent on oil exports and US protection. A kingdom built on sand, as it were. But they've lasted this long, and I see no immediate threats.
Yup, that's why I said arguably stable, not stable.
I think Turkey and Saudi Arabia are arguably the most stable states because of outside support for the establishment, and I don't think that's likely to change anytime soon. Too much strategic importance and investment in their stability.
Iran is pretty stable - remarkably, as you noted - but has some fundamental stability issues that are being intentionally exacerbated by outside players. I agree though that easing of sanctions should lead to more stability on their part, and either way I don't foresee them going anywhere fast.
Overall, I don't see any of the three really going down, but if I had to guess it would be Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia has a lot of similarities to Egypt, but as you said - they've lasted this long.
How credible is this fucking over? I know some republicans and aipac-loyal democrats are on board, but does this pose a real danger to the negotiations? It seems like a bit of a sideshow to me, but I don't follow internal US politics enough to know.
Fair. I wasn't meaning to argue with you, just toss in my own thoughts. The relative power/stability/influence of those nations is something that comes up frequently in my brain.
Don't they need two thirds to override a veto?
That provides a slightly higher margin at least.
Now, whether Democrats will actually vote to override Obama's veto is another question. They may not be willing to push it that far.
Sometimes I wonder why anyone at all listens to these men.
Because if you say anything bad about Israel, you are Hitler.
It's clear Israel won't sit down for actual peace talks until they have colonized the entire West Bank.
Israel lacks the stomach/cojones to do it quickly, the desire to not do it at all and no one else will stop them.
"Orkses never lose a battle. If we win we win, if we die we die fightin so it don't count. If we runs for it we don't die neither, cos we can come back for annuver go, see!".
Even the smallest difference is sufficient to fight over.
Their usually the best reason.
See: Sino-Soviet Split, 30 Years War.
http://movies.netflix.com/WiMovie/The_Square/70268449?trkid=13462100
Going to see a screening with the director tonight. ^_^
This looks tragic considering the present state of things in Egypt.
I mean, I want everyone involved in the existence of this sort of program summarily annihilated.
On the other hand, I also kind of wanted them gone already.
And I still don't really want the US involved in a military sense because then any reconstruction problems get blamed on the US and there will be problems galore because Syria is not in a good way.
I'm kind of stunned right now that the situation is so bad and yet I can't think of a lot of ways to address it that don't make things worse.
I guess we hope the conference in Geneva yields some progress.
This situation will probably stay bloody and horrible for a good long while sadly.
Also not too surprising that the government is relatively the strongest faction within the war; the possible window of opportunity to deal the regime a deathblow was in the Spring/Summer of 2012 and since its passing they've more or less dug their heels in to stay in power or die trying.
I've seen this before, and it is not true. The Pashtun easily outnumber the Kurds and also lack a homeland (no, Afghanistan doesn't count).
edit: "So Raven"? What is this? I guess I miseed "Bro?" being removed.
idk Afghanistan is 42% Pashtun, and estimates ranged up to 50% prior to the invasion and subsequent movement into N Pakistan. From my little bit of googling Afghan & Pashtun were pretty much interchangeable historically.
Like is 50% +1 the cut off needed to qualify?
Well Afghanistan is a de facto Pashtun state, yes; much to the chagrin of the other ethnic groups living there. However, there are more Pashtun in Pakistan than all of Afghanistan, and these are constantly chafing under the rule of Islamabad.
The Durand Line (border between Afghanistan and Pakistan) runs straight through Pashtun territory. Afghanistan is like half a homeland- they have to share it with others (and they are really not very good at sharing), and most Pashtun don't even live here.
I'll withdraw my claim that "Afghanistan doesn't count", at least when compared to the Kurds, who have nothing at all.
Seeing how there's no Uzbekistan-style "Republic of Amerindia" (name pending) in existence, that's what immediately came to mind. The Pashtun too.
There are also 27 million Sikhs, according to Wikipedia, and they're varied ethnically (then again, so are indigenous Americans, right?).
Don't worry. I didn't really know what Bro? meant either, honestly, nor this.
It is a paradise compared to the rest of Iraq. They've been extremely stable compared to the constant violence/civil war in the rest of the country.