I'll give a more thorough eplaination of my position later when I'm less tired and busy, smart-alek.Originally Posted by John J. Xenakis
- Join Date
- Sep 2006
- Location
- Moorhead, MN, USA
- Posts
- 14,442
I'll give a more thorough eplaination of my position later when I'm less tired and busy, smart-alek.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
So you think only Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, and Iran are 2T, and the rest of the Arabian peninsula (Israel, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Bahrain, Qatar, UAE, Oman, and Yemen) is 4T? I just want to be clear what your take is so I can really think about this.
It's safe to assume that if a crisis war cannot be located in a small country, the timeline has probably merged with a neighboring, large country.
It's probably safe to assume that, but I haven't looked at the countries that
I didn't mention in my previous posting. For example, Yemen is close to Africa,
and there might have been some interaction there. I don't think there was,
but I'm never certain about any country until I've looked at its history.
Sincerely,
John
Mesmerizing ME network map
These two javascript network maps of the Middle East are mezmerizing and thought-provoking -
http://orgnet.com/mideast.html
Right click on a country/entity and select "anchor in place" then move that country/entity to a corner or center.
Do this with a few of the entities.
For example, I froze and placed Israel to the far left, then the US just to its right. I then froze and placed the four non-states to the far right to see how the other countries would gravitate.
Once you do this, you can then freeze and flip countries to the right or to the left to see how the 'floaters' are effected. I like to watch Russia, China and India.
Interesting to take this arrangement and then push the Sunnis up to the top and the Shia down toward the bottom; see what happens.
Lots of other arrangements that are interesting such as pulling the US away from Israel.
Thanks to John Robb at http://globalguerrillas.typepad.com/ for finding this.
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
I'm a bit unsure what criteria the author used for 'linkages'. I notice there are no ties between China and Russia, or between India and the USA, or between the EU or Russia and Egypt (just to pick three easy examples) but that there is a link between Russia and Iraq (?)
I begin to suspect that this 'model' was built with a particular conclusion already in mind, and that the relationships were determined to fulfill that conclusion...
Last edited by Justin '77; 01-29-2007 at 03:37 PM. Reason: not spell so good
IOW and to translate INTP-speak. "I'll give a more concise explantion of my position when I damn well please, for now I'll just post snarkish remarks".I'll give a more thorough eplaination of my position later when I'm less tired and busy, smart-alek.
MBTI step II type : Expressive INTP
There's an annual contest at Bond University, Australia, calling for the most appropriate definition of a contemporary term:
The winning student wrote:
"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and promoted by mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a piece of shit by the clean end."
Izzy Waltonism, the Compleat Angler
I pulled Our Commercial Republic as far West as possible and put Israel on the other edge. AIPAC reeled us in like a dead carp.
If you do the same with the US and the EU, the same thing happens.I pulled Our Commercial Republic as far West as possible and put Israel on the other edge. AIPAC reeled us in like a dead carp.
By the way, don't India and Israel have a healthy trade going on?
I want people to know that peace is possible even in this stupid day and age. Prem Rawat, June 8, 2008
Damn, I've been found out!!!IOW and to translate INTP-speak. "I'll give a more concise explantion of my position when I damn well please, for now I'll just post snarkish remarks".
Though seriously, I've been quite busy for the last week.
To recommend thrift to the poor is both grotesque and insulting. It is like advising a man who is starving to eat less.
-Oscar Wilde, The Soul of Man under Socialism
Yea, I know, but I wouldn't take it too seriously. I find it, however, as a fascinating concept though. I'm not sure the flaw is the conclusion-already-in-mind as much as it is that these network geeks are just really weird. (my apologies to any network gods out there, please don't hunt me down like the dog that I am!)
I'll ask John Robb to write his friend and ask for the specifics.
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
That's funny! And yea, that was one of the first scenarios I tried.I pulled Our Commercial Republic as far West as possible and put Israel on the other edge. AIPAC reeled us in like a dead carp.
I'm also trying to find a combination that would get some entities rotating around an axis of some other entities.
On the second map, try to move the countries around so that they approximate a normal map. You can get it to stabilize to the approximate correct locations, but you have to be quick.
I guess this is a giveaway that I have nothing to do at work today! ;-)
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
That was really weird. It made al Qaeda and Israel both go to the top and I could swear AQ was barking at Israel.
Maybe I need to Metro home and take a nap?
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
More on Iran:
http://www.axisoflogic.com/artman/pu...le_23899.shtml
http://www.chris-floyd.com/index.php...019&Itemid=135
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0203-21.htm (Warning...uses the "Hitler" ploy)
http://www.commondreams.org/views07/0201-20.htm (they must really like the Hitler ploy)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...04/wiran04.xml
http://www.edmontonsun.com/Comment/2...22960-sun.html
http://carolynbaker.org/archives/fab...-by-larry-chin
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.p...articleId=4729
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17086418...eek/index.html
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2007/Fr...s_US_0212.html
http://www.alternet.org/story/47921/
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/...cle2261526.ece
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...1/wiran511.xml
http://www.alternet.org/mediaculture/47924/
http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/106853.aspx
Last edited by Tom Mazanec; 02-19-2007 at 02:44 PM.
Not good at all
The clock strikes a minute closer to our 4T -
http://tinyurl.com/2tg3mw
Holy crap, batman!TEL AVIV, Israel, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- Three Arab states have given the green light for Israeli warplanes to transit their airspace if necessary for an attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, a Kuwaiti newspaper says.
Al-Siyasa, quoted in a report by the Israeli paper Ha'aretz, identified the three states as Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates.
The report said a diplomat from one of the Gulf countries visiting Washington had told U.S. officials they would not object to Israeli planes flying over their countries if the Israeli had to come at Iran using a circuitous route.
The most direct route would be to fly across Iraq, and Britain's Daily Telegraph on Saturday reported that Israel was negotiating that possibility through the United States. Israeli Deputy Defense Minister Ephraim Sneh, however, denied the report and asserted Israel did not plan to attack Iran, which is believed developing nuclear weapons.
Ha'artez said the Kuwaiti newspaper also quoted an unidentified British diplomat as saying NATO leaders were urging Turkey to open its airspace.
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
Not to worry.
text
Just more disinformation...CAIRO, Egypt, Feb. 26 (UPI) -- The Arab League said three Arab Gulf countries have denied Israel use of their air space to strike Iran.
Arab League Secretary-General Amr Mousa told reporters in Cairo the foreign ministers of Qatar, Oman and the United Arab Emirates said there is no agreement allowing Israeli jets to use their air space to reach Iran.
His remarks came a day after Israel's Haaretz daily said Israel has received a green light from these three oil-rich states to pass through their air space to launch air strikes against Iran's Bushehr nuclear facility near the Arab Gulf region.
"These reports are either forged or fabricated," Mousa said, adding the foreign ministers of these countries have "officially authorized" him to relay this information.
"No Arab country could allow or give license to Israel to attack Iran," the head of the 22-member Arab League said.
While Arab governments privately fear that Iran's nuclear program threatens the Gulf security, they are unlikely to support Israel in such an endeavor against a Muslim country in an already turbulent region.
While Israel has no peace treaties with any of the six Arab Gulf states, it has limited commercial ties with Qatar and Oman.
The sea, the sea!
It is good that the Classical World has been made flesh for the Millennials.
First Wilsonian romantic idealism in the manner of Plutarch's Parallel Lives: Crassus gave us Carrhae to marvel at yet again.
Now, as we grovel at the table with the heirs to the Great King Artaxerxes II and his Syrian satrapy, I think Xenophon's Anabasis might be in order as we examine that western Reform movement (on Hamiltonian lines) in Eurasia.
It is equally amazing that this meeting is promoted as a gathering of neighbors. It is to laugh!
Syria to use germ warfare if Iran attacked:
http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54542
WorldNetDaily? Seriously?
You've got to have a better source for your news...
Ahem. Odin, if the Lebanese Civil War was a 4T, as you have recently claimed, wouldn't that make the English Civil War a 4T?
Last edited by Tom Mazanec; 03-28-2007 at 12:36 PM.
Mideast braindump
My, my, things certainly are moving fast, aren't they?
Somebody please tell me why these ideas are stupid; I'm sure there are plenty of people on these boards itching for the opportunity ;-)
Why are the Arabs suddenly moving on the Palestinian peace process, when the Iranian crisis is heating up? The Standard Model of Holy Land Politics, which uses a two-side model (Jews vs. Muslims), would argue that the Jews and Muslims are each trying to grab casus belli by trying to paint the other as the Side Who Doesn't Want To Make Peace, thus justifying "Israeli Independence War II" / "Naqba: The Rematch". The problem with such a theory is that both the Jews and the Muslims are acting very, very different from 2002, when the exact same proposal was made and rejected. The Israelis and the Saudis are inviting each other to talk. That's never happened before; the unwritten rules of the dying saeculum dictated that Israel dicker only with people actually gearing to attack them. Since Saudi Arabia is about as likely as Sudan to invade Israel with its own forces, something else is going on.
Consider instead a three-side model: Jews vs. Arab Powers vs. Iran. Between Hezbollah on the north, Syria on the northeast, and Hamas in the territories, the Iranians have been steadily taking control of the "struggle against the Zionists". It's come to the point that the Arab states are no longer able to affect events in Palestine. This frightens them terribly. For decades, the Arab Powers used Palestine as their whipping boy, their propaganda poster, their free labor pool, their tool to keep the Jews at bay, and their means of asserting their prestige as warrior-princes. Now they've lost all those tools of control, and their thrones quake beneath them. Add to the mix the rising 4T anti-Shi'a paranoia in the Sunni lands, and the massive decrease in the perceivable rationality of the Iranian regime, and you see why the Arab League might be considering drastic changes in strategy.
The Sunnis can't regain control of Palestine by launching another Arab-Israeli war. Such a move would only play further into Iran's hands; Hamas, not Fatah, would take control. Their only hope is to make The Deal, then flood the Palestinian zone with all the projects they've steadfastly avoided starting for sixty frakking years: farms, factories, roads, real homes.... a future for Palestine. Only a massive CCC effort, and an equally massive propaganda effort casting the construction of Palestine as economic warfare against Israel, can now stop the bloodbath that the Sunnis carefully spent an entire saeculum arranging.
Why would the Sunnis make such a dramatic reversal of their longstanding policies? Iran, Iran, Iran. With the fall of Saddam and the impending withdrawal of Western forces in Iraq, there is no longer any wall to stop the spread of Shi'ite influence across the Muslim heartlands. And with the strategic takeover of the Palestinian "struggle", Iran is quite blatantly setting itself up as the de facto caliphate. No Sunni Power wants to see a Shi'ite pseudo-caliphate, but the Saudis are especially pissed, as this bulloxes their plans for a Wahabbi pseudo-caliphate. So the Sunnis, with the Saudis in the lead, are trying to reassert their leadership by making The Deal. If peace is made with the Jews, nearly all of Iran's excuses for powermongering go up in smoke... and the Sunni world can reorient all its jihadi resources on the Shi'a.
On top of that, Iraq has paradoxically taken away some of the Muslim fear of America and the West. We've thrown our "worst" at them (WMDs aside), and the limits of our power are now revealed. Paranoia about the supposedly all-powerful CIA persists, but the idea that America could overthrow anyone in a heartbeat -- the idea that the neocons pushed so hard -- is now reduced. America has consequently dropped from Public Enemy #1 to Public Enemy #2. We have been "contained", while Iran is a more proximate and more opaque enemy. This is not the outcome of the Iraq War I would have preferred, but at this point I'll take any silver-lining improvement in American security I can get from this debacle.
So, in sum: I hypothesize that the Sunni Powers are desperately trying to re-target their 4T climax, which has been aimed like a missile at Israel for half a saeculum, onto Iran instead. I'm not sure it's possible -- the Hell on Earth they created in Palestine may not be fixable anymore -- but it gives me hope to see them even consider the notion.
'81, 30/70 X/Millie, trying to live in both Red and Blue America... "Catfish 'n Cod"
I would put the start for at least Iran's last 2T at 1978, when the Islamic Revolution began. The Islamic revolution was composed of different sorts of groups, which had completely different goals of what they wanted .One group under Khomeini managed to play them off and come to found the Islamic republic as it were. I think this is quite typical of 2T revolutions as opposed to 4T revolutions which are pretty much united.
The Iranian revolution triggered I would see as two decades of youth rebellion across the Middle East. Although the awakening could have started earlier with the start of the Lebanese civil war in 1975, which had different groups fighting off against each other.
Cheney "end run" plan: Israel targets Iran
Funny how versions of this come up whenever we have military exercises or carrier group rotations in the Persian Gulf -
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/
Cheney Attempting to Constrain Bush's Choices on Iran Conflict: Staff Engaged in Insubordination Against President Bush
The zinger of this information is the admission by this Cheney aide that Cheney himself is frustrated with President Bush and believes, much like Richard Perle, that Bush is making a disastrous mistake by aligning himself with the policy course that Condoleezza Rice, Bob Gates, Michael Hayden and McConnell have sculpted.
According to this official, Cheney believes that Bush can not be counted on to make the "right decision" when it comes to dealing with Iran and thus Cheney believes that he must tie the President's handsMultiple sources have reported that a senior aide on Vice President Cheney's national security team has been meeting with policy hands of the American Enterprise Institute, one other think tank, and more than one national security consulting house and explicitly stating that Vice President Cheney does not support President Bush's tack towards Condoleezza Rice's diplomatic efforts and fears that the President is taking diplomacy with Iran too seriously.
This White House official has stated to several Washington insiders that Cheney is planning to deploy an "end run strategy" around the President if he and his team lose the policy argument.
The thinking on Cheney's team is to collude with Israel, nudging Israel at some key moment in the ongoing standoff between Iran's nuclear activities and international frustration over this to mount a small-scale conventional strike against Natanz using cruise missiles (i.e., not ballistic missiles).
This strategy would sidestep controversies over bomber aircraft and overflight rights over other Middle East nations and could be expected to trigger a sufficient Iranian counter-strike against US forces in the Gulf -- which just became significantly larger -- as to compel Bush to forgo the diplomatic track that the administration realists are advocating and engage in another war.:-0It is not that Cheney wants to bomb Iran and Bush doesn't, it is that Cheney is saying that Bush is making a mistake and thus needs to have the choices before him narrowed.
"Che l'uomo il suo destin fugge di raro [For rarely man escapes his destiny]" - Ludovico Ariosto
