Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt you'll find a left-liberal position on the war, since 'don't do it' is no longer an option. It's impossible to unring a bell, and this Presiudent is playing that for all it's worth. According to the adminstratin, we're fighting the Long War, now.

Perhaps we should review a few other long wars, starting with the Thirty Years War (the predicted length of this newly defined struggle), and the Hundred Years War (just in case).

Actually I've been advancing the theory of a "Twenty Years' War" on these boards essentially since September 12, 2001; it fits in with the saeculum better.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

Originally Posted by Marx & Lennon

I doubt you'll find a left-liberal position on the war, since 'don't do it' is no longer an option. It's impossible to unring a bell, and this Presiudent is playing that for all it's worth. According to the administration, we're fighting the Long War, now.

Perhaps we should review a few other long wars, starting with the Thirty Years War (the predicted length of this newly defined struggle), and the Hundred Years War (just in case).

Actually I've been advancing the theory of a "Twenty Years' War" on these boards essentially since September 12, 2001; it fits in with the saeculum better.

That might fit. Thing is, if the Long War fits the pattern of the Cold War, it won't be a single conflict. It could become a time of tension between the First World and the Third, as the Cold War was a conflict between the First and Second. Various hot spots will flare then fade. Autocratic warlord governments and autocratic Islamic neo-fascism are to a great degree the same problem. The Middle East just has oil and oil money, so the stakes are higher. Both sides are willing to throw more money and effort into oil rich regions. Still, by the time the history books get written, Desert Storm, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Darfur and East Timor might all register as hot spots in the Long War.

I don't think we'll be in Iraq for 20 years. At some point, the Iraqi regime will have had time to recruit and train as much of a security force as it needs. Withdrawing the provocation of an occupying force will then make sense. This won't solve all the issues, however.

If so, if the struggle becomes recognized as a First World / Third World conflict with the remnants of the Colonial division of wealth providing the dividing line, the Long War might be recognized as starting shortly after the Berlin Wall fell. This would put us back into the Thirty Years range if it ends with a soon to start crisis era.

Originally Posted by Bob Butler 54

That might fit. Thing is, if the Long War fits the pattern of the Cold War, it won't be a single conflict. It could become a time of tension between the First World and the Third, as the Cold War was a conflict between the First and Second. Various hot spots will flare then fade. Autocratic warlord governments and autocratic Islamic neo-fascism are to a great degree the same problem. The Middle East just has oil and oil money, so the stakes are higher. Both sides are willing to throw more money and effort into oil rich regions. Still, by the time the history books get written, Desert Storm, Somalia, the Balkans, Chechnya, Darfur and East Timor might all register as hot spots in the Long War.

I don't think we'll be in Iraq for 20 years. At some point, the Iraqi regime will have had time to recruit and train as much of a security force as it needs. Withdrawing the provocation of an occupying force will then make sense. This won't solve all the issues, however.

If so, if the struggle becomes recognized as a First World / Third World conflict with the remnants of the Colonial division of wealth providing the dividing line, the Long War might be recognized as starting shortly after the Berlin Wall fell. This would put us back into the Thirty Years range if it ends with a soon to start crisis era.

Agree with you that we won't be in Iraq for 20 years - and if the latest contretemps over there do produce a full-blown civil war we could be out of there a lot sooner!

But one of the inherent policy changes that will have to come out of this turning is a new open-mindedness regarding the partitioning and/or annexation of disputed territories (apparently the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians have begun negotiations over Kosovo - and the first thing they did was to rule out any ethnic partitioning of Kosovo, and any part of it being annexed to Albania. To me at least, this is totally wrong-headed and needs to change - otherwise the 4T wars will end up being much bloodier than they need to be). The Iraqi civil war - if it happens - could lead to there being three sovereign nations where today there is only one (it better, otherwise only the winners may literally survive), providing that the movers and shakers give up their pig-headedness.

For the moment I will stick to my original prediction, which calls for steadily escalating war, ending sometime in the late 2010s (which would make it more than 20 years long if, as I do, you mark the start of the war - but not, of course, the Crisis era - at the original World Trade Center bombing in 1993), followed by a post-war depression (set off by "The Crash of 2019"), from which massive economic reform will emerge (an expanded welfare state, universal health care etc.). For convenience's sake if nothing else, I place the projected resolution at 2023, the year the 1958 cohort turns 65.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

But one of the inherent policy changes that will have to come out of this turning is a new open-mindedness regarding the partitioning and/or annexation of disputed territories (apparently the Serbs and the ethnic Albanians have begun negotiations over Kosovo - and the first thing they did was to rule out any ethnic partitioning of Kosovo, and any part of it being annexed to Albania. To me at least, this is totally wrong-headed and needs to change - otherwise the 4T wars will end up being much bloodier than they need to be). The Iraqi civil war - if it happens - could lead to there being three sovereign nations where today there is only one (it better, otherwise only the winners may literally survive), providing that the movers and shakers give up their pig-headedness.

Large, ethnically-diverse nations usually fail. The USSR failed because many of the individual republics could do a better job of governing themselves than being governed by an aloof, foreign government in a distant capital.

Why are we (the West) afraid of maps that look like Eastern Europe? Shouldn't we encourage the Balkanization of these countries? Wouldn't that make them less powerful on the international stage? Is that what we want, so we don't have to sweat over what kind of nuclear programs they are hiding?

A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.

Well, what are we afraid of? Turkey? :lol: Wouldn't a Kurdish state benefit them because them could just resettle their uppity Kurds in the newly established Kurdish state?

Look, sometimes autonomy works. The Sami in northern Finland don't need/ask for a state. The Basques have a minority that supports independence, but the majority don't. And even those with the means to separate - the Scots and Welsh - don't.

So what's the big problem. If Iraq were to be three states, why would it be bad? Just because you have to add two seats at the United Nations? Two more flags on the Rand McNally atlas. I recall a friend telling me that East Timor shouldn't be its own nation back in 1999 - he was a neoconservative Jew, ie. an Israeli nationalist with an American passport - who fervently believed in his nation's right to exist, but seemed perturbed by the idea of others seeking nationhood. And I could never figure out why.

I think deep down he respected power. He liked the idea of dealing with a world filled with Chinas, rather than a world filled with Switzerlands. He respected the Russians, but Chechens to him were not worthy of respect. It's a strange position, but it may be common among some Washington thinkers. I wonder if Reagan only welcomed East Europe into the West because he wanted to weaken the USSR. Hmm...how many layers does this cynical onion have?

Originally Posted by Mary Fitzmas

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

A variation of Divide and Conquer. The Iraq War would be a victory in disguise! I knew that foreign policy should be run by a Nomad.

Well, what are we afraid of? Turkey? :lol: Wouldn't a Kurdish state benefit them because them could just resettle their uppity Kurds in the newly established Kurdish state?

Look, sometimes autonomy works. The Sami in northern Finland don't need/ask for a state. The Basques have a minority that supports independence, but the majority don't. And even those with the means to separate - the Scots and Welsh - don't.

So what's the big problem. If Iraq were to be three states, why would it be bad? Just because you have to add two seats at the United Nations? Two more flags on the Rand McNally atlas. I recall a friend telling me that East Timor shouldn't be its own nation back in 1999 - he was a neoconservative Jew, ie. an Israeli nationalist with an American passport - who fervently believed in his nation's right to exist, but seemed perturbed by the idea of others seeking nationhood. And I could never figure out why.

I think deep down he respected power. He liked the idea of dealing with a world filled with Chinas, rather than a world filled with Switzerlands. He respected the Russians, but Chechens to him were not worthy of respect. It's a strange position, but it may be common among some Washington thinkers. I wonder if Reagan only welcomed East Europe into the West because he wanted to weaken the USSR. Hmm...how many layers does this cynical onion have?

The Sami are a Norwegian-Swedish-Finnish-Russian people. My cousins' grandmother and a friend of my grandmother was of Inari Sami stock. I think the Sami could use at least four or, more justly, nine seats in the UN. Reindeer restaurants would reign on the East River.

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

The Sami crossed the borders freely until 1826, when the Norwegian/Finnish/Russian border was closed. Sami were still free to cross the border between Sweden and Norway according to inherited rights laid down in the Lapp Codicil of 1751 until 1940, when the border was closed due to Germany's occupation of Norway. After WWII, they were not allowed to return. Their summer pasturages are today used by Sami originating in Kautokeino.

They had access to their lands until Progress of the Nationalistic, Socialistic sort came in.

I think the more nations, the better. Especially in places like the Middle East of Africa where post-colonial borders were drawn in a rather arbitrary and unreasearched fashion, when people, nee tribes, who share something in common are more apt to have harmonious governance if they handled their own affairs.

Generally, this is the case. Using this logic, the US could also "benefit" in this manner, but I have my doubts because the idea of America is far too ambiguous to be drawn across something obvious like religion or ethnicity. Even ideas are not really THAT divisive. The same goes for a nation as big as China, who had thousands of years of unification to condition disparate peoples under one banner, although lately we've been contemplating two regions that might gain autonomy if they could: Xinjiang and Tibet.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

And what did the "libertarians" say about Iraq anyway?

It would be an amusing exercise to summarize what Seadog had to say about the adventure during the run-up to the war as an answer to your question.

Back on-topic, there is currently a straw poll for the 2008 Dem Presidential candidate at dembracket.calculusman.com. It's in the format of a 64-person single-elimination tournament, and it's currently in the championship round. The finalists are Wes Clark and... Al Gore. After the first of three days of voting, Clark is ahead 55-45.

I found it linked from DailyKos, so the results can probably be said to represent the core activist base of the Democratic Party. (The other two in the Final Four were Russ Feingold and Mark Warner.)



Update: Gore's closing the gap -- now he's only down 53.7-46.3! This could be as exciting as watching Global Warming!

My man Pat Buchanan is on a roll - an absolute roll!

A Pitchfork Moment

We certainly live in exciting times.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My man Pat Buchanan's on a roll - an absolute roll!

Originally Posted by In justifying a reaction to DPW but not P&O, Pat Buchanan

It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.

So why do "almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim"? Well, it depends on how you define "terrorist", which he does in the previous sentence: terrorists are the people who attack us. (When we attack them, it's "counterinsurgency" or "freedom on the march".)

A closed loop for a closed mind.

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

My man Pat Buchanan's on a roll - an absolute roll!

Originally Posted by In justifying a reaction to DPW but not P&O, Pat Buchanan

It was not Brits who struck us on 9/11, who rejoiced in the death of 3,000 Americans, who daily threaten us from the mosques of East and West, who behead our aid workers, bomb our soldiers and call for "Death to America!" in a thousand demonstrations across the Middle East. And while not all Muslims are terrorists, almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim.

So why do "almost all terrorists appear to be Muslim"? Well, it depends on how you define "terrorist", which he does in the previous sentence: terrorists are the people who attack us. (When we attack them, it's "counterinsurgency" or "freedom on the march".)

A closed loop for a closed mind.

No: Terrorists are those who target innocent people, who have nothing to do with the "oppression" from which the terrorists claim to be suffering. (Hint: Gavrilo Princip was not a terrorist; neither were Herschel Grynspan, Lee Harvey Oswald, or even Sirhan Sirhan for that matter). And isn't Buchanan against this "freedom on the march" business?

A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").

Anthony, I hate to have to tell you this, but in order to be credited with having an 'open mind', you will have to become a dogmatic "America Worst" zealot. :cry: :evil:

(The Category 5 firestorm of brickbats and ad hominem attacks which I have just brought down upon myself by having the unmitigated gall to dare to say so merely proves my point, at least to my satisfaction.) :twisted:

Originally Posted by Tim Walker

Would we accept Crisis era refugees? Israelis, perhaps? Chaldeans/Assyrians?

Northern Europeans when the Gulf Stream stops working?

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

A closed mind? Perhaps; but one that many more people are open to listen to than the likes of Cindy Sheehan etc. (Buchanan is all about "America First;" the latter are all about "America Worst").

Anthony, I hate to have to tell you this, but in order to be credited with having an 'open mind', you will have to become a dogmatic "America Worst" zealot. :cry: :evil:

(The Category 5 firestorm of brickbats and ad hominem attacks which I have just brought down upon myself by having the unmitigated gall to dare to say so merely proves my point, at least to my satisfaction.) :twisted:

I don't see why someone can't be proud of America, believe in (true) homeland security, admit that we (or actually Dubya) f**ked up with Iraq, yet also not be an isolationist.

I don't like Sheehan's open support of various Leftist causes (besides, I think she would have had much greater impact if she had just stuck to the one issue) and I don't like Buchanan's isolationism and hostility toward Israel.

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

As in "Let's not have anything further to do with those savages!" being more acceptable to millions of swing state voters than "Let's not continue to inflict ourselves upon those poor innocent people over there!" :wink: :twisted:

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

It would be an even stronger message...if it was part of a package deal that included taking control of our borders.

Originally Posted by Prisoner 81591518

Originally Posted by Anthony '58 II

The point is that isolationism is "acceptable" in ways that pacifism is not - at least to millions of voters in the swing states the Democrats need to recapture if they are to have any hope of being relevant in this turning.

It's all a matter of how the message (in this case, get out of the Middle East) is packaged.

As in "Let's not have anything further to do with those savages!" being more acceptable to millions of swing state voters than "Let's not continue to inflict ourselves upon those poor innocent people over there!" :wink: :twisted:

Works for me.

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.

Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.

Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.

So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.

Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.

So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)

When he senses that the Republicans have hit rock bottom and are vulnerable. This will likely be after the 2006 elections.

Originally Posted by Roadbldr '59

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Originally Posted by Peter Gibbons

Originally Posted by Helter Skelter

Gore wins the DemBracket straw poll 53-47 over Wes Clark.

Like I've been saying for over a year now when I started this thread, don't count this guy out. The man's gotta fire in his belly and he knows what's coming.

So when is he going to quit pretending that he's not running? (Same with Hillary.)

When he senses that the Republicans have hit rock bottom and are vulnerable. This will likely be after the 2006 elections.

At which point it will be between Gore and Rodham. And Rodham has the upper hand at the moment, IMO. Gore had his chance in 2000, and as for Rodham, this may be her last chance. That consideration can put fire in the belly, too. Thus, I figure that if Gore wants another shot at the White House, he's gonna have to get past Rodham, and that will not be easy (to put it mildly!).