World Affairs

[Dreadnought 8,226]

24 minutes ago, krbe said:

And authoritarian societies can do really well -- such as Singapore.

That remains to be seen.  The Chinese experiment is still in play.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

That remains to be seen.  The Chinese experiment is still in play.

The interesting aspect of China is that its 'dictators' only remain in office for a limited time. And that the assembly or whatever they call it elects the next guy. This has allowed them to avoid one of the major issues that affects nearly all other authoritarian regimes and that is the problem of power transfer. China has invented a way, and they have some success with it, at least for now, to safely, orderly and peacefully transfer power. It has also prevented the creation of one single powerful family (usually the one of the dictator) getting all the sweet jobs and gaining a total stranglehold over the economy. Of course, corruption is a massive problem in China for sure, but perhaps it is more manageable for the guys that decide to clean house. 

Of course, it remains to be seen whether this approach is sustainable.  

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

5 hours ago, Dreadnought said:

Charles I and Charles II -- one was beheaded, the other was the "Merry Monarch".  I call that 50/50!  Hardly a reason to say they've done badly. 

The House of Windsor came close to making a terrible mistake (Edward VIII) -- but also produced Elizabeth II -- a glittering example.

IMHO -- Charles III will surprise everyone -- much like his esteemed Great-Great Grandfather.

George V?  I seriously doubt that Charles is a martinet.  He is much more like George VI (his grandfather) with overtones of Admiral  Louis Mountbatten, who was his confidante until his murder by the IRA.  Since the Crown chooses the name by which they will be known, nothing stops Charles from being George VII.  This would probably please a very large number of people.  I just hope he, like his mum, doesn't smoke.

Oh, and Charles II was suspected of being a crypto-Catholic, and he spent a great deal of this life in exile.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

51 minutes ago, A Nonny Moose said:

George V?  I seriously doubt that Charles is a martinet.  He is much more like George VI (his grandfather) with overtones of Admiral  Louis Mountbatten, who was his confidante until his murder by the IRA.  Since the Crown chooses the name by which they will be known, nothing stops Charles from being George VII.  This would probably please a very large number of people.  I just hope he, like his mum, doesn't smoke.

Great-Great Grandfather to Prince Charles is Edward VIII !

Prince Philip - father

George VI - grandfather

George V - great grandfather

Edward VII - great-great grandfather.

Where you been, dude ??

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Oops, you are quite correct.  My genealogy was out of whack. 

In any case, I still think George VII would be better than Edward IX in view of uncle Dickie's reputation.  Besides, the previous Charles' were both Stuarts and had nothing to do with the current line of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and the defunct Greek monarchy, (Battenburg) a.k.a. Milford-Haven, which is also not a great name since they introduced Dickie to Wally Simpson.  The name got changed to Windsor because of good old uncle Willy during WW I.

The act of succession now sets things up so that if anything should happen to Charles, William will get the crown, poor sod.

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Actually, the popular Edward VII was the great great grandfather, while the abdicated Edward VIII was the older brother of George VI and a great uncle to Prince Charles.  Unless the Windors have started acting like the Habsburgs...

Still, there is something attractive about pinning most of an era's culture war issues and national moral symbolisms onto a ceremonial figure with continuity rather than dumping them on a political executive every four years.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

14 minutes ago, Odainsaker said:

Actually, the popular Edward VII was the great great grandfather, while the abdicated Edward VIII was the older brother of George VI and a great uncle to Prince Charles.  Unless the Windors have started acting like the Habsburgs...

Still, there is something attractive about pinning most of an era's culture war issues and national moral symbolisms onto a ceremonial figure with continuity rather than dumping them on a political executive every four years.

Sorry, guy --

I got one too many "IIIII" in my text -- I've corrected it.

No -- Edward, Duke of Windsor, is understandably a taboo subject -- "let The Firm down", and all that.

Edward VII was the last scion of the House of Saxe-Coburg-Gotha and was acclaimed by most as a much better King than he was a Prince.  "The Peace-Maker of Europe" is not a sobriquet to be sneezed at!  ;->

I rather favor the idea of Monarchy.  Charles will be able to exert some influence over his ministers, and therefore his Kingdom, but it will be small indeed when compared to a US President having his policy discussed by the Supreme Court.

And Charles will only be crowned once -- much cheaper and far more fun for the subjects than seeing a candidate spending hundreds of millions to tell lies and get elected every four years.

And -- if you notice -- when a Prime Minister steps down, there is hardly any "hubub".   While Americans get drowned in a sea of partisan politics for a year and a half before the election -- and the winner gets vilified for the next 4 years -- and little or nothing gets done for The People.

I haven't really followed the British Parliamentary system closely -- is it as easy to get "bought-and-paid-for" politicians over there as it is over here?  The Koch Brothers and their vast fortune are the American version of Warwick The Kingmaker.

The American two-party system can be taken-over and manipulated far too easily to be called a true democracy. 

I say we get ourselves a King -- Bernie The First??

[Sabretooth78 808]

15 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

I say we get ourselves a King -- Bernie The First??

"Umm, hey, I'm over here!"  - Donald Trump

[Dreadnought 8,226]

56 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

"Umm, hey, I'm over here!"  - Donald Trump

EVERYBODY knows where Donald is -- he's married to that "tweeter" !!

I'm for a bit of old fashioned revolution!!

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

And Charles will only be crowned once -- much cheaper and far more fun for the subjects than seeing a candidate spending hundreds of millions to tell lies and get elected every four years.

That is pretty much an exclusive American problem. Look at France, they elect a president without starting the election campaign years in advance and without spending billions of euros on it. America could stop wasting all that money if they really wanted too, indeed its part of Sanders policy platform is it not? Limit the amount a candidate can spend, ban super pacs, etc? 

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

And -- if you notice -- when a Prime Minister steps down, there is hardly any "hubub".   While Americans get drowned in a sea of partisan politics for a year and a half before the election -- and the winner gets vilified for the next 4 years -- and little or nothing gets done for The People.

In the UK? Well, yeah, but thats because the UK has a two party parliamentary system. The winner takes all, while the loser can't do anything effectively except 'criticize' whatever the government is doing in the papers. Only to be completely ignored by the government. Basically the way the UK has set itself up is that every election basically decides which party has absolute control over the country until the next election cycle. 

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

I haven't really followed the British Parliamentary system closely -- is it as easy to get "bought-and-paid-for" politicians over there as it is over here?  The Koch Brothers and their vast fortune are the American version of Warwick The Kingmaker.

As easy? Nah, the fact that there is basically just one election that really matters on a national level and politicians don't spend so much of their time campaigning means they also need less money to keep their jobs. So less opportunity to buy a politician. That is not to say it doesn't happen. I'm think private businesses may donate money to the parties, and the conservative party is much like the Republican party in their efforts to marginalize the poor and set up a welfare state for large corporations, especially the banks. 

1 hour ago, Dreadnought said:

The American two-party system can be taken-over and manipulated far too easily to be called a true democracy. 

I say we get ourselves a King -- Bernie The First??

The British system is hardly any better than the US system. At least the US system allows for effective opposition from congress, in the UK there is no opposition, just people without power that can boo whenever someone from the governing party makes a speech. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

If the Americans want a king, that's easy.  Just scrap that old piece of political theory and apply for membership in the Commonwealth of Nations.  I am sure all would be forgiven.  They might even consider forgiving us for burning down the White House when Adams was president.  Oh, and there's no stamp tax on tea, any more.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Russia tests allies alert status.

This is not surprising.  The big Bear is always tangling with NORAD as well.  We don't mistake those bombers for Santa Claus.

[LexusInfernus 908]

Meh, they do that all the time. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

The Gulf Cooperation Council of Arab states outlaws Hezbollah.

The Islamic Civil War is starting to form its alliances.  All western states should exit and let the sons of Abraham settle their argument once and for all.

[Sabretooth78 808]

Would be nice that it were, but I get the feeling this is just yet another in a long line of Sunni vs. Shiite "things" that doesn't actually go anywhere towards solving any problems.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

53 minutes ago, Sabretooth78 said:

Would be nice that it were, but I get the feeling this is just yet another in a long line of Sunni vs. Shiite "things" that doesn't actually go anywhere towards solving any problems.

Maybe, but it is yet another stone in the foot gear of the Iranians.  This whole squabble between the two sects is something rather trivial.  Islam need to get its act together.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Sabretooth is onto something, here --

It is just another maneuver in the constant dance between the Sunni and Shiite factions --

It's not going to solve any problems --

The Iranians already have their big, fat, foot stuck in the door in every conceivable place in the region -- it's going to take more than a pebble in their sandal to slow them down!

[Sabretooth78 808]

That is, not to say that I don't agree that we should leave and just let them burn the place down themselves.  Technologically, I think we're getting there slowly.  Politically, on the other hand; good luck.

When the House of Saud (as what I perceive to be the Sunni "leaders") publically and meaningfully condemn parties/outfits such as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, then I might start taking what they say seriously.  Honestly, I don't think they do because I don't think they'll remain in power if they do.

[LexusInfernus 908]

1 hour ago, Sabretooth78 said:

When the House of Saud (as what I perceive to be the Sunni "leaders") publically and meaningfully condemn parties/outfits such as ISIS/ISIL/Daesh, then I might start taking what they say seriously.  Honestly, I don't think they do because I don't think they'll remain in power if they do.

You do realize that Saudi Arabia is part of the coalition that fights IS? Honestly I'm not sure what they have to do to prove they condemn outfits like IS. 

Also, all that talk that this is a shia-sunni thing, eh I seriously doubt that. Its as much about that as the Franco Prussian war was about some lingering conflict between Protestants and Catholics. Iran wants to be a regional power player and so does Saudi Arabia. Except that Iran actually has the capabilities while Saudi Arabia requires a lot of Western support to keep up. Religion plays no role of significance in good old power politics. 

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ A very good point.  Iran has been civilized for centuries and although they've been through a few revolutions, they've always emerged as a strong, cohesive country.  They speak Farsi for the most part which is modern Persian.  Iran is what is left of the Persian empire that flourished a couple of millennia ago.  Iraq is the other half of old Persia, but has been hijacked by the Arabic speaking world.

The Saudi royal family are a bunch of camel drivers jacked up by the British Empire in the 1920s.  They are the Johnny-come-lately royals in that part of the world.  The Brits tried it with Iran and the Shah, but you see where it got them in the end.

Of course, with the break up of the British Empire, it all went to hell in a hand basket.  Power wise, without the Americans, the Saudis would probably disappear in a puff of orange smoke.  Desert kingdoms have nothing but oil to offer the trading world, and only the ones with sea coasts and/or ancient monuments have anything else to offer.

Now that things are becoming clearer, they are not the only ones with lots of oil.  Also, oil as a fuel is becoming denigrated.  Their economic base is slipping away.

"What's the use of my land
"Fifty acres of sand?
"What's the use?"
       Sung by Kenny Gardner on the Guy Lombardo Show.

[MissVanleider 1,850]

Until the continuation of the status quo is no longer in the interests of the majority of the players in this drama, The staus quo will be maintained.

The continuation of the status quo suits all players more than the possibility of losing ground to one or more of their various rivals. I'm confident therefore that some form of status quo is what Syria, and the wider region; has in store for the forseeable future, however depressing that seems

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

Clearly the leaders over there are unaware of the Peter Principle.  Hanging on to the status after it has lost its quo can be fatal.

[MissVanleider 1,850]

2 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Clearly the leaders over there are unaware of the Peter Principle.  Hanging on to the status after it has lost its quo can be fatal.

It is true that I like saying Status Quo.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

3 hours ago, MissVanleider said:

It is true that I like saying Status Quo.

Watch out.  The phrase will bite you.  How would you like to have the status quo of 1946?  No TV, no personal computers, no Internet, barely out of the horse and carriage era, Europe in a shambles, most nations impoverished and still using rationing to make ends meet.  If you wanted to see a sports event you had to attend it.

[MissVanleider 1,850]

19 hours ago, A Nonny Moose said:

Watch out.  The phrase will bite you.  How would you like to have the status quo of 1946?  No TV, no personal computers, no Internet, barely out of the horse and carriage era, Europe in a shambles, most nations impoverished and still using rationing to make ends meet.  If you wanted to see a sports event you had to attend it.

I'm not saying I like the concept of status quo, just that I like saying it. Why would any individual wish for Europe's status quo of 1946 or the status quo of Syria 2016?  Even the governments involved in the situation at the moment aren't all in favour of the current malaise, my point is just that they fear a thawing of the current situation will be worse for their narrow interests, and maybe better for the interests of their enemies. Status quo might not be good, but at least it isn't considered a 'gamble'

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

^ All living is a gamble.  You might fall out of bed and break your neck.  The problem with the "I've got it"s is that they are afraid to give up what they've got, even a jot or tittle.  If Bashar Al Assad was smart, he'd beat it out the back door with everything he could carry and then let the chips fall where they may.  Intelligence (?) sources say there are over 100 rebel factions.  Let 'em fight each other over the corpse of what used to be Syria, then we'll swat the winner and make the whole works a UN trust territory.

The restoration work in Damascus and Aleppo alone will keep people employed for a century or more.  Did you see the photo feature on the BBC about the great mosque in Aleppo.  The only square minaret in Islam was destroyed and it had been standing for a millennium.  Aleppo is one of the oldest inhabited cities in the world, and look what these fools have done.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

Assad will be a "puppet" -- and the Russians will eventually own the world's largest semi-inhabited military base.

If the fools had any idea what they were doing to their own culture, they would have stopped long ago.  But revolutions often destroy what is best about their culture while allowing what is worst to thrive.

[MissVanleider 1,850]

48 minutes ago, Dreadnought said:

Assad will be a "puppet" -- and the Russians will eventually own the world's largest semi-inhabited military base.

If the fools had any idea what they were doing to their own culture, they would have stopped long ago.  But revolutions often destroy what is best about their culture while allowing what is worst to thrive.

Syria situation does have the feel of some kind of cold war proxy-conflict. I can't be the only person that has thought the following:

 

In the 1980s the CIA and the americans armed the fledgling Afghan Mujahadeen, with Russian made weapons acquired by Israel to drive the communists out of central Asia. This was successful in its narrow goals.

At this time, the US was also friendly with (comparatively) secular Sadam Hussein of Iraq, who saw him as a buffer and ally against that time's public enemy no. 1 in the Islamic World - Shia Iran.

The 1990's brought about the 'end of history' with the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the idea that there was only one superpower left.

In 2001, attacks directed by Bin Laden (one of those among the then US backed Mujahadeen in the 80s) against the US gave the west a new enemy - Al-Q. which led to the 10+ year interventions in (formerly Soviet) Afghanistan (and Iraq, and slightly more quietly in Pakistan).

The slow dismantling of the command structure of Al-Q over the past 15 years and the gradual leaching of personnel and experience has led to the rise of IS, one of many groups now fighting for a slice of (comparitvely) secular (but extremely unpleasant) Syria of Assad.

I think in the West. IS / daesh is seen as the least disposable faction of the many in Syria. Daesh is of course an extremist Sunni group in a country with significant Shia minorities. (Syrians probably feel Assad is the least disposable, and biggest threat to them)

One of the rebel groups said to be fighting effectively against both Assad forces and IS forces seems to be the Kudish PKK. They are (naturally) communists.

So along with  moderate thawing of western-Iranian relations in recent times we see western attitudes have gone from 'anti-communist, anti Shia, pro-Sunni' to potentially "Pro-Shia, pro-communist, anti Sunni" in the space of 30 years. The reason for this is clearly self interest, the west just needs a more coherent plan, but then there is no doubt a mirror image of this discussion on a Russian language forum somewhere.

[Dreadnought 8,226]

1 hour ago, MissVanleider said:

but then there is no doubt a mirror image of this discussion on a Russian language forum somewhere.

ABSOLUTELY -- !!

And that may well be the problem.  If the US is happy the Russians are not.  If the Russians are happy the US is not. 

Unfortunately -- the Kurds in Turkey, Syria, and Iraq may not be powerful enough to pacify the region.  But I favor them.  I strongly favor a three-way division of Iraq as a political / religious solution in that country -- and I would not mind giving the Kurds a large slice of Syria as well.  Though they may be communist -- I do not see that as a serious problem.  They strike me as people committed to their cause and certainly sensible.  If The US were to throw a serious amount of ALL OUT support to the Kurds -- they would doubtless become a strong partner in the region.  And they might even make it possible for the US to get it's big nose out of their business.

[A Nonny Moose 8,261]

In the long run, I believe the Kurds will get their way.  What we are seeing is the very last death throes of the Ottoman Empire with Turkey being the main fly in the ointment.  Having Turkey in NATO was a huge mistake born out of the cold war in an attempt to encapsulate the USSR.  Didn't work.  However, it did throw a hooker into the Black Sea Ports the Russians love so much.  With Turkey sitting across the Bosporus, they can keep it bottled up.

Meanwhile, to the south, the Kurds are making life difficult for the Turks.  They may be communist, but if the Turks had their preferences entirely Turkey would be fascist.  Remember, they were part of the Axis powers in 1939 and definitely on the wrong side in WW I.  While T.E. Lawrence wrote as one of the winning side, his Seven Pillars of Wisdom does take some serious stock of the Turkish character. 

Anyway, all these old attitudes just won't fly in the global village.  If the Kurds manage to create Kurdistan, I expect it will be friendly to the west and probably some kind of pseudo-democracy.  A general win by the Kurds against the IS forces means that they will get to execute that jumped up Khalif.  I am sure that Iblis has a warm spot for him.