We have now apparently received a response from ISIL/ISIS/IS,
or whatever they are calling themselves today, to President Obama’s declaration
of war. Yes, really, that is what it
was. They have released a video saying,
in effect, bring it on. Unfortunately,
or fortunately, as the case may be, it has been removed from YouTube.
However, you can read all about it here.
They are in effect saying that any US troops that dare to
show up to the fight will be killed. President
Obama has already stated that he has no intention of sending US ground forces,
although General Dempsey, Chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, has left open
the possibility of his recommending them.
I have never liked the President’s making flat declarative statements
that leave no room for adjustments. But
being the politician that he is I know he is aware he is speaking for the
consumption of an American audience and must take into account their feelings. The General being the military man he is
understands that nothing is certain in war.
They will eventually have to come to an agreement if they are to succeed
in this fight.
If it wasn't a situation with very serious ramifications for
the region I would have to say it reminds me a great deal of this:
But it is first and foremost a fight for those on the ground
in the region, and we have found that the Kurd's have been a very important
ally:
Whether or not US ground forces, beyond advisers, are
necessary at this time is questionable.
It will ultimately, as I have said so many times in the past, be up to
those in the region to determine what kind of world they want to live in. However, if that world is one that threatens
the safety of those outside it then they will find resistance.
143 comments:
"But being the politician that he is I know he is aware he is
speaking for the consumption of an American audience…"
Have you considered that he might be intending the ‘no ground troops’ assertion for the benefit of straightening out the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE, Turkey, etc. who still seem to believe they can lay back and wait for the Evil Merkins to handle this threat for them? While they continue to feed the threat, hoping to leverage their own positions in the region on the back of what they still expect to be our efforts to keep their bad behaviors from coming back to bite them.
The Virtue of Subtlety
Post Script:
The Obama administration has been telling us this is a several years' long strategy. This is a good thing to know starting out. It may take a few years for the Arab powers in the region (and the Turks) to realize we are going to let them take some hits. They're not going to want to believe that, and will probably have to take a few hits, and watch us shrug it off, before they will believe it.
ave you considered that he might be intending the ‘no ground troops’ assertion for the benefit of straightening out the Saudi, Kuwaiti, UAE, Turkey, etc. who still seem to believe they can lay back and wait for the Evil Merkins to handle this threat for them?
I believe that KSA has already sent troops to its border with Iraq and both it and the UAE have offered to help with airstrikes. All of those states could also help with funding. Turkey is probably the worst problem child among them. It has dragged its feet at closing its borders to extremists. Partly I suppose because of the diplomats that ISIL holds hostage.
The United States must turn this from a balance of power between Syria and Iraq to a balance of power among this trio of regional powers. [the trio being Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia]
I found this to be kind of an odd statement. I have never thought of this as being a balance of power issue between Syria and Iraq. In fact it seems to me that Syria and Iraq are aligned, together with Iran.
I can see where there logically would be a balance of power between Turkey, Iran & Saudi Arabia. As it stands they are probably the strongest powers in the region. The creation of an extremist state within the heart of the Middle East would work like a cancer infecting all of them, though.
The Obama administration has been telling us this is a several years' long strategy.
Bush said the same thing about the terrorist threat from AQ. It is all the same to me. It stems from the internal dynamics of the countries in the Middle East. Despite what people accuse us of, if they had their houses in order there would be no issue.
Oops, I should have put an attribution to that balance of power statement. That came from "The Virtue of Subtlety" article.
Have you considered...
In direct answer to your question, yes he could be speaking to two audiences at the same time, for different reasons.
"I believe that KSA has already sent troops to its border with Iraq and both it
and the UAE have offered to help with airstrikes."
We need Arab boots on the ground, and not on the border between Saudi Arabia and Iraq, further inland than that. They know it. They're figuring to wait us out. I'm willing to match ‘em, be patient; they're in greater danger than we are. (We give the Kurds whatever they need in the meantime is my thinking.)
"I found this to be kind of an odd statement."
Early on Syria was assisting the Iraqi Sunni insurgency against Baghdad. He's probably referring to that long-standing rivalry (very long standing rivalry). As you notice though, that's almost ancient history now (although it would be ready to rear its head soon as the more immediate troubles are dealt with.
Given the GOI's relationship with Iran and the Gulf Arab support for groups like Al-Nusra I think seeing Saudi Arabian boots on the ground in Iraq is going to be unlikely. We are more likely to see Iranian boots on the ground. Speaking of Iran, I am finding it rather ironic that they appear to be suggesting that the US put combat forces in Iraq. They were the ones who worked so hard at opposing our involvement there, with EFP transfers to people fighting us there, and using their influence with the GOI. While I don't want to see ISIS spread as far as Iran, I am not overly sympathetic towards the Iranians.
Early on Syria was assisting the Iraqi Sunni insurgency against Baghdad.
They did allow foreign fighters access to Iraq when were there, yes. Just another one of those shifting alliances that are so common in the region. Now Assad and the GOI seem to be working more hand in glove.
"Now Assad and the GOI seem to be working more hand in glove."
Assad does what Iran requires he do. It was the Iranian spook, Qassem Suleimani, who turned things around for Assad back when the Free Syrian Army was originally kickin’ his ass, before the jihadi element consolidated itself in Syria. It was largely collusion between Iran, (via Suleimani installed as CinC for the Syrian government) and ISIS that has allowed ISIS to emerge dominant in the Syrian rebellion. Now ISIS is big and bad and threatening Iran's control over Iraq, threatening to dismember Iraq. I think we can call that an ‘unintended consequence’ so far as Iran is concerned. Now they want us to defend their ‘Shia Cresent’ project for them and save them the money and blood they'd otherwise have to expend on defending it themselves.
I'm not much inclined to support doing such a service for Iran.
"We are more likely to see Iranian boots on the ground."
I'm uncertain of Iran's commitment to recapturing the northwestern, Sunni dominated provinces. They might decide that a smaller, Shia dominated country is in their interests.
The military has drawn up targets in Syria for possible airstrikes. Waiting on the okay from the President.
Marcus, care to fill us in on the recent Swedish election. Seems the Social Democrats are back after a hiatus, but the Sweden Democrats (far right, according to our news) increased their share to 15%.
Avidly, watching the proceedings in Scotland here. And studying.
Difficult to say just yet Pete. The Sweden Democrats (that I recently explained to Lee were not neo-nazi in any capacity and I said I expected would pass 10% and possibly reach 15%) came in at 12.9% up from 5.7% in the last election. (so my guess was pretty spot on)
As I have discussed here before we in Sweden have had an extreme situation when it comes to immigration. We will in 2014 accept more refugees than any nation in Europe being one of the smallest populations.
The intake of refugees right now to Sweden means we have a higher per capita inflow of new citizens than did the US at it's peak of european immigation. And the US got willing workers, we get willing wellfare dependents.
We take in 10 time the median EU numbers and 7 times the mean EU numbers. Those are facts. So before you condemn me for being "racist" you think about whether you'd like a tenfod increase of immigration in your part of the world.
And all other parties and our collective mainsteam media have told us that to question this is to be a nazi! Or at least to be in cahoots with nazis.
Well. The Sweden Democrats have benefitted from this. They have a sordid past but i'd say the are in the clean now, IMO. For one thing they are the only political party we have that has a "zero tolerance" of racism. They are in the EU group with UKIP for that matter, so Farage must have seen them as house broken.
I might add, before ya'll write me off as a right wing looney:
Sweden in 2014* (*projection) accepted about 90.000 asylum seekers and 60.000 relatives of previous asylum seekers.
Translated to the US (since we have about the same population density) that would mean about 500.000 arabs, north africans or afghans every year injected into the US society.
Ya'll think ya'lld want that?
Apart from the SD angle I expect the Social Democrats to form a weak government that can't be much more than a caretaker of the current state of affairs.
Whick is to mean that all (most) the tax cuts and pro-bussiness policies the last rightist government instilled will be kept, since the new "left" is without a majority and they have that silly notion that SD is "not a party to negotate with".
Today they write off 13% of the people and when their government will fail, which I anticipate will be not this fall but next fall, those 13% will rise to 20%.
And all because "someone" decided sweden needed to be a "humanitarian superpower" - and that's not me making jokes they actually said that.
"…explained to Lee…"
What you gave me was more along the lines of an unsupported claim, or naked assertion than an explanation.
So you make the countre claim then Lee, if you think you're more tuned in to domestic swedish politics than I am. Have at it.
I'm tuned in ‘nuff to know yours is very much a minority position in Sweden.
Avidly, watching the proceedings in Scotland here.
I am curious as to what the result will be as well. Even one of my co-workers who isn't normally that interested in foreign current events mentioned it. I sill remember talking to some people about this when I visited Scotland. I was, of course, clueless about their internal politics and was surprised that independence was still desired. I hope whatever they choose that it turns out well for them.
A beautiful country, btw.
:)
"sill" should be "still"
I hope whatever they choose that it turns out well for them.
Hmmm...lets change that to:
I hope whatever they choose turns out well for them.
:)
55% to 45% "No", i.e. in favour of keeping Scotland within the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Some interesting and unexpected results from the individual constituencies, but haven't time to dwell on it now. High turnout of about 85%.
The continuation of the UK is decided, but the hard part begins now for David Cameron -- the establishment parties promised the world to Scotland in terms of new devolved powers in the event of a "No" vote, but Cameron's backbenchers include a bunch of Tory toffs who don't care too much for upstart Scotland and/or want to know what's going to be in it for England.
Basically everybody's saying that the Scottish vote means "business as usual" is not an option for the UK -- devo-max and federalisation are the terms being bandied around -- but conservative forces within the establishment parties will make it very difficult to shake up an exceedingly England- and London-centred union.
In terms of those individual constituencies -- working class Glasgow as expected voted "Yes", but by a narrow majority and the turnout was the lowest at 75%. Outlying regions including the islands that might have voted "Yes", did not do so. Shetland was a "No", as were the Western Isles. (Was funny to see the TV people grappling with the name of the latter, which for the last few years have officially been known by their Gaelic appellation, na hEileanan Siar).
Lee: "tuned in ‘nuff to know yours is very much a minority position in Sweden."
It's not. Mine is the majority position. 44% respond that it's a good idea to reduce the number of immigrants, 31% say it's not a good idea, the rest are undecided. I belong to the larger group.
And my source is the SOM-institute from the University of Gothenburg that tries VERY, VERY hard to tweak their research in the other direction.
You're tuned into our media opinion Lee, not our public opinion.
I wasn't referring to your opinion on immigrants.
...Cameron's backbenchers include a bunch of Tory toffs who don't care too much for upstart Scotland and/or want to know what's going to be in it for England.
It keeps the UK united. Once you start chipping off pieces of a country it becomes weaker. It also is a caution to any other piece that may have independence as a dream.
As an American watching this it was like watching friends contemplate divorce.
I see the US Congress has voted to arm and aid the Syrian rebels. Then they proceeded to hightail it out of town for their 2 month hiatus. Oh such devotion to their country at such an unsettled time. Very impressive.
Let me see who can I vote against? Hmmm...
"I see the US Congress has voted to arm and aid the Syrian rebels."
Only until December 11, 2014, after which the appropriation runs out. I don't expect much training to get done in such a short amount of time.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
I was reading earlier that the enthusiasm (to use a euphemism) of the Scottish seccessionist side had intimidated their opposition into silence and even to mis-reporting their intentions in the public polling done prior to the vote. Those who favored keeping the union were being accosted as unpatriotic it was said, and were unwilling to expose themselves to the abuse. I was a little dubious of that proposition, but the 10% margin suggests there may have been something to that.
Lee: "I wasn't referring to your opinion on immigrants."
Do elaborate then. In what context is my opinion "very much a minority position in Sweden" according to you?
Somehow I'm not much surprised by your demand that I now tell you what bait you choose to open with.
"I recently explained to Lee [Swedish Democrats] were not neo-nazi in any
capacity…"
Marcus @ Thu Sep 18, 03:49:00 pm
So the issue would be whether or not the majority of Swedes agree with you that they've managed to obscure their neo-nazi roots sufficiently well that the majority of Swedes have forgotten it.
My guess is not. Otherwise they'd not find their vote percentage maxed at only 13% from amongst a population in which a plurality of 44% wants stricter limits on immigration. Nor would they find themselves still taboo among the major political parties.
I was reading earlier that the enthusiasm (to use a euphemism) of the Scottish seccessionist side had intimidated their opposition into silence and even to mis-reporting their intentions in the public polling done prior to the vote.
Just goes to show that intimidation doesn't work. It only give a skewed picture of what is real. All they did was fool themselves.
Lee: "So the issue would be whether or not the majority of Swedes agree with you that they've managed to obscure their neo-nazi roots sufficiently well that the majority of Swedes have forgotten it."
Forgotten it? No I never said that. Their roots are in the BSS-movement (which translates to keep Sweden swedish and was kinda nazi in its time).
But the party did undertake several liberalisations since then. For one thing the now party leader came straight from Moderaterna, the centre-right party that governed Sweden up until last week.
In 2001 the "radical faction" split off into Nationaldemokraterna and progressed to slide into oblivion. While Sverigedemokraterna changed their main ideology from Nationalsim to Social Conservatism.
Lee: "Otherwise they'd not find their vote percentage maxed at only 13% from amongst a population in which a plurality of 44% wants stricter limits on immigration."
Easy to explain. Most people put immigration quite a bit down on their list of priorities. In this election the education system was on top, followed by the job market, followed bu state finances. SD being a fairly "young" party, and still being seen as somewhat of a one-issue party, hasn't got the credibility people seek on those issues*. Mostly people who put immigration as the top priority vote for them, but their immigration policies have far wider support.
"Nor would they find themselves still taboo among the major political parties."
That'd be a typical swedish thing I don't really expect you to get. It's a "culture of consensus" and they have been coming down so hard on the newcomer it'll take time for them to change tracks. In Norway and Denmark the party politics is much more pragmatic and they look at us now and wonder what the hell we're upto.
So no, noone is in any doubt where SD came from. But that they are neo-nazi today you'll actually not hear from even their fiercest opponents. A small minority do call them "fascists". A large portion, possibly a majority still, label them xenophobic.
*BTW, this is one reason why they didn't get my vote. I think they have the better immigration policy but I think they are still a bit clownish as a whole.
Plus the Christian Democrats looked awfully close to slipping under 4% which would've meant no seats in parliament so I threw in a tactical vote for them. Not that I am on board with them either to the full extent but I believe they are needed on the right-of-centre side where I find myself.
You do need to think in tactical terms in a whole other way in an 8-party system than in a 2-party system. IMO more parties, up to a point, increases the actual democracy of the system. Too many though and it decends into chaos.
We have the 4% limit here where any party that gets above 4% gets seats in parliament according to their voter base. I am of the opinion that this is reasonable but I'd be open for reformation to up the limit to 5-6% maybe. I believe 8 parties as we have now is possibly one or two too many. I'd certainly not want more still.
"But that they are neo-nazi today you'll actually not hear from even their fiercest
opponents."
That so?
"And so, a bad remix of a neo-Nazi party is now Sweden's third-largest. This is
nothing short of a political earthquake that Löfven is terribly positioned to handle."
Elias Groll in Foreign Policy
"And all other parties…have told us that to question this is to be a nazi! Or at
least to be in cahoots with nazis."
Marcus @ Thu Sep 18, 03:49:00 pm
"SD being a fairly ‘young’ party, and still being seen as somewhat of a one
-issue party…"
Okay, I'll go with ‘trying to clean up their reputation’, but still ‘in cahoots’; close ‘nuff.
Then the question comes down to one of semantics, whether one can reconcile being ‘not neo-nazi in any capacity’ with being ‘in cahoots with nazis’, especially given that they still periodically get embarrassed by little things like having their candidates showing up in photographs while wearing swastikas around the house.
Lee: "Okay, I'll go with ‘trying to clean up their reputation’, but still ‘in cahoots’; close ‘nuff."
I don't think they ARE in any capacity neo-nazi. For one thing we can easily do away with any anti-semitism, since several jews hold parlametary positions for SD.
The second thing I'd like to point out is that they are HATED among the real nazi far right which is a very small movement in Sweden. They are called a "controlled opposition" in those circles.
Third, sure you'll be able to dig up one or a few news sources where SD are labeled neo-nazi. But only very few. You'd find more luck digging up sources where they are described as xenophobics (and those sources would have better arguments, while the former have basically none at all).
BUT: As I told you before there's a wide, wide gulf in Sweden between our media and public opinion. There's that gulf in most countries, but in Sweden it's way larger than in most.
OK, Lee. You might dismiss me here, even though I'm way more in tune with my own countrie's political landscape. You may tell yourself you know better or that I am misnformed or lying. But factor this:
SD had 5,7%. You metioned that to me. I told you they'd top 10% in the recent elections and could possibly reach 15%. They came in at 12.9%.
Could you have foreseen that? Hardly. Why is it you think you know better than me what happens in Sweden and for what reasons?
Lee: "their candidates showing up in photographs while wearing swastikas around the house."
A bad taste joke in a very drunken stage. It can happen to the best of us, even Royalty:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/4170083.stm
"… sure you'll be able to dig up one or a few news sources where SD are
labeled neo-nazi…"
I'll tell ya what I can dig up. I can dig up Marcus being damn near hysterical, all caps and exclamation points, over some Ukrainians from a party which only garnered two percent (2%) being caught wearing swastikas. When it's a 2% Ukrainian party then the whole Ukrainian government is shot full of Nazis according to Marcus. When it's a Swedish party that Marcus has considered voting for, that gets 13%, then it's no big deal.
What I won't be able to find is any indication that such a conveniently flexible approach, tweaked as the situation moves you, embarrasses you even a little bit.
Lee:
"I'll tell ya what I can dig up. I can dig up Marcus being damn near hysterical, caps and exclamation points over some Ukrainians from a party which only garnered two percent (2% being caught wearing swastikas. When it's a 2% Ukrainian party then the whole Ukrainian government is shot full of Nazis according to Marcus. When it's a Swedish party that gets 13% then it's no big deal."
I knew it'd come back to this and that you can't see a difference. There is a HUGE difference there. But I don't think I'll be able to in a limited amount of time convince you of that.
Perhaps Pete could help? Pete, could you explain to Lee that anti-immigration western parties like Fremskrittspartiet in Norway, Dansk Folkeparti in Denmark and Sverigedemokraterna in Sweden are a whole other kettle of fish when compared to the openly nazi Svoboda in the Ukraine or the fascists Golden Dawn in Greece or Jobbik in Hungary?
Because Lee seems to need to buy himself a bag full of clues here.
Here's a clue. The Ukrainian Svoboda party, just like the Swedish Democrats, denies being either fascist or anti-semitic. "Svoboda itself, state[s] that its politics are nationalist, but not fascistic or antisemitic."
By the way, they got 10% in the last Ukrainian elections, less than the 13% that Swedish Democrats got in their last election.
Yeah, well, that depends on what you WANT to believe.
You Lee C, for arguments sake want to deppict them as one and the same.
But you are plain wrong. Very wrong.
You could have found that out easily yourself with a few googles but you don't want to, do you?
"Yeah, well, that depends on what you WANT to believe."
Believing what one wants to believe is one of those things I try to guard against. I've come to believe a lot of things I didn't want to believe.
I don't believe the Ukrainian government is shot through with Nazis, or even garden variety facists. Unlike you, I actually understand the political/socio-economic theories that undergird fascist philosophy. It's considerably more complicated than just Hitler hated Jews.
I can, in fact, put on a damn good argument for the proposition that Putin is the obvious fascist in that dynamic.
Fascist socio-economic theory is, quite simply, incompatible with membership in the EU. If the Ukrainians were fascists they'd not be trying to join the EU in the first place and they'd not be in this mess. You don't want to know that, so you just don't. So, don't you be givin me no shit ‘bout believing what I want to believe.
"But that they are neo-nazi today you'll actually not hear from even their fiercest
opponents."
That turned out to be wrong, didn't it?
"…the openly nazi Svoboda in the Ukraine…"
That turned out to be wrong, didn't it?
And that's just a couple of them…
And yet you don't budge an inch. You still believe what you want to believe. Doesn't matter how many of your premises prove wrong; you're wedded to you conclusion.
Don't you be givin me no shit ‘bout believing what I want to believe.
Sorry, Marcus, I am afraid Pete is buried in a 6,000 word paper and might be scarce this weekend.
I can't be of much help on other countries fringe elements but I can attest to the fact that the US does have its share. And if those are the only groups you were to immerse yourself in then you would think them to be the last word on the future of the US. I was just talking to someone earlier today about the possibility of one of our states seceding. He really seemed to think it a good possibility. I, on the other hand, do not. But then I tend to see more of the mainstream of my country, perhaps, than he does.
Marcus,
You mentioned the Christian Democrat party. How much of a role does religion play in Swedish society?
Random flyby during study break...
Christian Democrat doesn't necessarily mean much in European circles -- most countries have such a party. (Ironically, Ireland doesn't, at least not one that ever got more than single digit votes -- we're too busy building politics around a hundred year old civil war).
The main party in Germany (Angela Merkel's one) are Christian Democrats. They have formed alliances with the Socialist/Marxist opposition, so the Christian appellation doesn't necessarily count for much. Euro Christian Democrats tend to be Protestant rather than Catholic, though not exclusively so. That's because of historic Protestant establishment churches, like the Swedish Lutherans.
Re: the Right in Europe ... it's been coming on in leaps and bounds. There has definitely been a lurch toward the right in recent years, and rightwing parties have been moving toward the centre to take advantage of newfound respectability. Yes, there are actual fascists like Greece's Golden Dawn, and there are fascist hangers on in less far right parties like Farrage's UKIP, but I don't think anyone could credibly call UKIP fascist. I don't know about the Sweden Democrats but I can well believe they are one of these rightwing parties vying to become more mainstream and busily stuffing a few of the more embarrassing skeletons into the closet. And yes, the media has a heyday with such parties ... every faux pas is amplified by left-leaning press. Just as aside, regarding the centre right ... I see Sarko is looking to make a comeback in France; probably sees an opportunity with Hollande unable to make himself much less popular unless someone invents negative percentages.
Lynnette, re: Scotland and "divorce". Harrrummph! More like they've decided to stay in the abusive relationship they were swindled into 250 years ago. Don't forget Ireland was part of the same union from 1801 to 1922, and I don't think you'll find anyone lamenting the Irish-UK divorce on either side of the border. I suppose the difference with Scotland is that the Brits merely committed a few massacres and stole their resources, whereas with Ireland they actively committed genocide. When you're married to the Pol Pot of the western hemisphere, divorce can start to look attractive.
Right, back to my quasars. Continue as you were.
"Yes, there are actual fascists like Greece's Golden Dawn…"
This is probably where I point out that Golden Dawn opposes Greece's membership and participation in the EU.
Lee, Svoboda in the Ukraine isn't EU friendly nor is the EU friendly towards it. It's a temporary "enemy of my enemy"-thing because Putin is seen as the worse enemy.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/03/06/opinion/speedie-ukraine-far-right/
"A 2012 European Parliament resolution condemned the main -- but by no means most extreme -- ultra-right party, Svoboda, as "racist, anti-Semitic and xenophobic.""
"As if to endorse the sentiments of the EU resolution, the leader of Svoboda (or "Freedom"), Oleh Tyahnybok, is on record saying that Kiev is governed by "a Jewish-Russian mafia" and has said Ukrainians bravely fought Muscovites, Germans, Jews "and other scum" in World War II."
"Svoboda in the Ukraine isn't EU friendly nor is the EU friendly towards it."
Actually, Svoboda is rather more friendly to the EU than is the EU to Svoboda.
"Svoboda actively participates in the ongoing pro-European Union protest
campaign aimed at influencing regime change and integration with the EU"
Wiki.
The Swedish Democrats, however, are somewhat less friendly towards the EU.
"The Sweden Democrats in their foreign policy reject joining the Economic and
Monetary Union of the European Union, are opposed to the accession of Turkey to
the European Union [also the accession of Ukrain] and want to renegotiate
Swedish membership of the European Union."
more Wiki
And see EUActive
And see Business Insider
I'm fairly certain the European Parliament will eventually get around to denouncing the Swedish Democrats as ‘racist, anti-Muslim and xenophobic’ in due time, if they've not gotten to it yet.
Miscellaneous points: ∙Conservative and right-wing groups, whether or not fascist in their ideology, are, in general, less supportive of international or multi-national organizations than are moderates or liberals. ∙The only objection I've noticed from Svoboda is in relation to ‘gay rights’ legislation generally popular among pro EU types.
Post Script:
I did notice that the CNN piece you referred to was an Op-Ed piece, not a news article.
"The CIA has curbed spying on friendly governments in Western Europe in
response to the furor over a German caught selling secrets to the United States…
***
"Under the stand-down order, case officers in Europe largely have been forbidden
from undertaking ‘unilateral operations’ such as meeting with sources they have
recruited within allied governments."
Associated Press
Turkish diplomats freed in a covert operation. Congratulations, Turkey! Well done. :)))))
The Turks were claiming that they couldn't take action against ISIS because their diplomats were captive. We'll now see how whether that was true and or whether it was merely a convenient excuse to do what they wanted to do anyway.
I suppose the difference with Scotland is that the Brits merely committed a few massacres and stole their resources, whereas with Ireland they actively committed genocide. When you're married to the Pol Pot of the western hemisphere, divorce can start to look attractive.
Oh, don't get me wrong, Pete, as an American I can certainly see why people in Scotland might desire independence. We have had our fights with them ourselves. I was looking at this vote in a more pragmatic light. Everything is so interconnected now that a split might cause more harm than good. Trying to work out some kind of more workable arrangement between Scotland and England might be easier in many ways. As for resource theft, has Scotland not gotten anything in return? I am afraid my historical knowledge of Scottish history is limited to what I have read in novels, and those focus on things like the battle of Culloden and the king "over the water".
The world in 1922 was a lot different.
The Turks were claiming that they couldn't take action against ISIS because their diplomats were captive.
I was thinking the same thing.
Scotland's problem is that of any small country in a larger union. The interests of the larger entity entirely dominate those of the smaller. Scotland has only a twelfth of the UK population (although a third of the land mass) and it is geographically remote from the centre of power. The northern English have the same problem -- London really is like a separate country, while the rest still struggle with de-industrialisation and a London brain drain. Why would you allow taxation and other policy to be set by the competition?
Lee: "The Swedish Democrats, however, are somewhat less friendly towards the EU."
I never claimed anything else. And I agree with that position myself. I regret I voted yes to EU-membership back when that referendum was held and I am very pleased our collective no-vote to EMU was enough to keep us out of the Euro despite huge lobbying from the yes-side.
What of it? Is it an extremist viewpoint to be against the debacle in Brussels?
The EU only came into the discussion when you made the claim that Svoboda must be a fairly normal political party or else they and the EU would shun eachother.
I answered that the only reason this is so is that the EU wants to lure the Ukraine away from Russia and Svoboda sees the EU as a way to keep away from Moscow - not that they share beliefs in any way. I then added very clear and quite recent reservations from the EU with regards to Svoboda. Those are still valid but are kept silent because the larger conflict with Russia takes precedent.
That was the debate. Not wether critizism towards the EU is extremist. It is not. If that was the case Norway would be run by extremists. And Switzerland too.
"What of it?"
Quite simply, surrending economic control to a super-national entity is incompatible with fascist economic theory. Objection to joining the EU is not, in and of itself, an indication of fascist ideology. However, it is mandated by fascist ideology. If the fascist element in the Ukraine were in charge in Kiev, or even significantly influential there, the Ukrainians not be clamboring to join the EU in the first place. And Svoboda's acceptance of, even eagerness for, EU membership for the Ukraine is evidence for the proposition that they're not actually fascists after all.
They may or may not be xenophobic, racist bastards, but they're not fascists--at least, not very good fascists. They seem to be less inclined to fascism than your own Swedish Democrats, at least in this measure.
"…you made the claim that Svoboda must be a fairly normal political party…"
I made no such claim. But, neither would I suggest that the Swedish Democrats are a ‘fairly normal political party’.
I did claim that the Swedish Democrats got a higher vote percentage in the last election in Sweden than Svoboda did in the Ukraine, by about 2½ percentage points (2½%)
And, just by the way, I would again say that substituting Muslims for Jews as ‘the enemy within’ doesn't make one ‘not a Nazi’.
Late answer to Lynnette:
"You mentioned the Christian Democrat party. How much of a role does religion play in Swedish society?"
A very small role. There's a supposed "bible belt" and I can't speak for the people living there since I don't myself. Perhaps they still attend church on Sundays an masse, but I expect it's limited to the older folks.
Then there's the muslim communities who seem to take their religion more seriously. In my hometown Malmö you notice it when you pass the main mosque on fridays and half the towns taxi-fleet is parked outside.
As a swede you are born into the Swedish Church. You pay church taxes on your income. But it takes just one phonecall to leave the church (they send you a paper you sign and return it and you're out).
My own experience with the church is limited to weddings, funerals and the end of the shool year. Plus I was in the boy scouts when I was a kid and that was organised by the church so every once in a while a priest would come and visit and talk religion. We tried to skip those occations as they were boring.
"As a swede you are born into the Swedish Church. You pay church taxes on your income. But it takes just one phonecall to leave the church (they send you a paper you sign and return it and you're out)."
It doesn't cost anything to be a member of the Catholic church, but we had a spate of people wanting to officially leave. After a few efforts to remove names from baptismal registers the church decided the administrative effort was pointless and just told people to bugger off and stop going. I don't think they used those exact words.
I'm still in there and pay my church taxes to the Swedish Church. Not that I'm religous but they do some good stuff and it takes money to keep all those churches in good repair, and it would be a shame to have them dissapear. About 3000 kr I believe I pay, so about $500, annually. Not really sure but something like that. No big deal.
So on the record I guess I'm a Chistian, but I don't really think of myself that way. If pressed I'd have to go for "Agnostic with Christian background" or something like that.
Speaking on European nationalism here's the real champion of it all:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t1w-03aDPDs
France has traditionally led the western world in its political changes, at least the eurasian part.
Marine Le Pen as a new president in France and it's an avalange that will follow her. Then the media will change its tunes too, whores as they are.
Onwards and upwards! It'll happen.
After a few efforts to remove names from baptismal registers the church decided the administrative effort was pointless and just told people to bugger off and stop going. I don't think they used those exact words.
ROFL! I hope not. I would expect a little more courtesy from the clergy. :)
It doesn't cost anything here to be a member of the Catholic church either, although they do like donations. :) As I may have mentioned in the past I am more of a lapsed Catholic. I went quite frequently as a child because my parents went, but as an adult I have not attended services unless it was for a wedding or a funeral.
And even though my parents went they are not what I would term "religious". It was just what you did. Although I did have other family members who were more devout.
Here is an interesting opinion piece on the Scottish vote.
Marcus's Lutheran church membership sounds quite expensive for someone who doesn't care for it ;-) Although they do have some rather nice Scandinavian church architecture.
I too grew up in a religious milieu. However, I'd renounced it even before I reached my teens and spent a lot of effort avoiding church attendance (except when I needed to steal money from the collection plate ;-)
In my mid twenties I had something of a relapse. Ironically the country had something of a seismic cultural shift in the meantime. So while I spent part of my youth being an atheist in a devoutly Catholic country, I'm now getting to spend my middle years as a Catholic in a devoutly atheist country -- or rather, in a militantly post-Christian country, which is worse.
Lynnette, that article makes the Scottish referendum sound like all sweetness and light. There are, in fact, quite a few tensions between the Yes's and No's, especially in Glasgow where it has quite a sectarian character, partly imported from Northern Ireland (which is not surprising since their histories have been deeply intertwined for at least 1,500 years).
CBS News is reporting that the 49 Turkish hostages were ‘freed’ by ISIS. There was no ‘covert operation’. (Unless one considers the covert negotiations for their release to be a ‘covert operation’)
Petes,
Tensions? That's to be expected when you have opposing views where people are passionate about their side of the issue. Everyone here always laments the mudslinging and nasty tricks pulled during our elections, as if they were new. But they've existed here since day one, I think. It's human nature, unfortunately. No, I agree with the writer of that op-ed, it was an achievement that should be recognized. To go beyond emotions and to allow the will of the majority in an honest vote to prevail is not a small thing.
Lee,
Yes, I think it was rather obvious that there was more to it than what the Turks were reporting. I just didn't want to speculate on what. I am sure that if money or aid of some sort was given to ISIL the Turkish opposition will ferret it out. I hope that they would eventually come to understand that letting ISIL continue on is counterproductive to the whole region and start to assist in the coalition fighting them. Turkey is already being inundated with refugees from Syria.
*sigh*
Well, summer is well and truly over. It's like it never was, it went by so quickly. The leaves are starting to fall. Yes, even before the trees have turned. But there are a few turning color as well. I guess up north they are well along. I just finished mowing/vacuuming the yard. It will look nice for a little while at least. But a beautiful fall day. I have always loved the changing of the seasons.
"I just didn't want to speculate…."
I'll speculate. The Turks have promised to not close the border to new jihadi fighters wanting in on the fight. They've had an open border policy for money, supplies and new recruits into Syria; they have an understanding now with ISIS that those supply lines through Turkey will remain available to ISIS.
"…mudslinging and nasty tricks pulled during our elections, as if they
were new."
They are cyclical, however. The amount of nastiness the electorate will tolerate waxes and wans over time. We're in a period where it's relatively nasty compared to the late 70s through the mid 90s, maybe even later.
"Well, summer is well and truly over."
It's not done here yet. In fact, we've had entire summers a lot worse than our September has been. Still 16 degrees at 9pm tonight -- we've had colder July afternoons. Official stats say that it's been the warmest, dryest first half of September ever recorded.
A few trees are tinged with yellow, one or two quite advanced, but I'd say most of them will be putting in end-of-season growth for another month. Certainly no lawn hoovering required! :)
At another level, we've simply been dodging Atlantic bullets for a month. Every time a low pressure system impinges from the west, a continental high seems to float it's way up from Normandy and push it off.
This is extraordinarily unusual, and a stark contrast to last winter's conveyor belt pattern of super-tropical lows aimed squarely at our latitude, as if being broadsided at point blank range in a naval battle. I wonder if that's in store again for December.
The Turks have promised to not close the border to new jihadi fighters wanting in on the fight.
Then they are just going to see a revolving door. Jihadists going and refugees coming.
They have to understand that ISIL wants more than just the territory they have now. If Turkey doesn't stand up it may very well see part of itself swallowed.
Apparently we are going to see some warming later in the week, like in the 80's F. But the falling leaves are the death knell.
It's late, I'll have to look at the article tomorrow.
Night all.
"The Turks have promised to not close the border to new jihadi fighters wanting in on the fight."
Have to say I find this highly improbable. Today the Turks have been lobbing teargas at Kurdish refugees who fled Syria but now want to re-enter the country to fight IS. They are citing the problem of having Kurds radicalised in Syria and coming back to cause problems in Turkey. Now, you could argue that it's all part of the deal with IS -- keep the Kurds out but let the jihadis in. However, that smacks of a tinfoil hat conspiracy story. Seems more likely that the Turks want to keep their border with Syria as sealed as possible.
"Now, you could argue that it's all part of the deal with IS -- keep the Kurds out…"
I see no reason to add the extra embellishment of ‘keep the Kurds out’ to the understanding with ISIS. The Turks seem to have their own incentive for acting against the Kurds, regardless of any such understanding. It's almost a knee-jerk reaction for them. They were gassing Kurds to keep them in Syria just late last week. But, aside from keeping the Kurds from going where they want to be going, the Turks have shown little interest in sealing that border.
Strong hints on the evening news that Turkey did a prisoner swap with ISIS. Erdogan refused to confirm nor deny in a press conference today.
The US along with some Arab allies have started bombing in Syria around Raqqa.
An interesting piece here.
Many Western politicians are uneasy with the fact that they are now de-facto allies with Iran and the Syrian Assad dictatorship as well as rebel groups that are openly Islamic terrorists and hostile to the West. Iran wants to destroy the West but at the moment it’s a case of “the enemy of my enemy is my ally whether I like it or not.” Despite official policy there is some informal military coordination with Iran and the Assads. Meanwhile the Iranian government is encouraging the rumor that ISIL is part of an American plot to hurt Iran. This sort of thing is believed by many Arabs as well, who see the Western operations against ISIL as another form of the Western “war on Islam”. This conspiracy theory is so popular that many Arab states are reluctant to get too involved with the mainly Western coalition formed to stop ISIL. This is despite the fact that ISIL is a very immediate threat to most Arab states in the region. Then again, this region has been known for never letting facts get in the way of a popular fantasy.
That was interesting. Do you have a link to the original source?
And it was apparently more than just some token shots.
At least five Sunni Arab countries, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar and Bahrain, appear to have agreed to the use of their names in official statements coming out of Washington. It's not clear yet that their ‘contributions’ amounted to more than use of their names in official statements.
Marcus may get some new neighbors now.
Lee,
That was from Strategy Page.
http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/syria/articles/20140919.aspx
As to the original source, I guess that would be whoever they get their info from. :)
Some of their sources are listed here.
http://www.strategypage.com/aboutus/default.asp
"That was from Strategy Page."
Yeah, I got that when I followed the link. There was no by-line though, and it read like it was pulled from a blog. Turns out it was also printed verbatum in other sites. (example) But I have not yet discovered the author.
Here is a link to a Syrian resident of Raqqa's twitter account.
Yeah, like other blogs Strategy Page must be "taken with a grain of salt". Without attribution it can be hard to tell if the facts are really facts. But it is an interesting read. I usually look various places to try to match up accounts.
Turns out it was also printed verbatum in other sites.
Yup, it could be just an internet story reprinted lots of times, until people take it as fact. Even supposedly reliable news sites can be misled.
A lot of speculation in arab countries that the US intentionally created IS and has been running it from the get go:
http://www.ndtv.com/article/world/suspicions-run-deep-in-iraq-that-cia-and-the-islamic-state-are-united-595462?pfrom=home-lateststories
Myself: no I'm not THAT conspiracy minded. But I do believe that the US turned a blind eye to those extremists as long as they were fighting Assad. And I do believe the US knows very well where IS get their money and weapons from, and has done little to stop that, so far.
If Quatar and Kuwait does something, like sponsor the IS, the US is liable as well. Because those countries would not have done that if the US had forbidden it. No way.
I am still in mourning today, Marcus, but I can't let your comment go without a response.
A lot of speculation in arab countries that the US intentionally created IS and has been running it from the get go:
Illusion can be a comforting thing when reality is so painful.
But I do believe that the US turned a blind eye to those extremists as long as they were fighting Assad.
I think it was expedient for the US to avoid looking at this problem in real depth. Because to actually do something would have required agreement and hard work on the part of so many people. Much easier to let it slide. Unfortunately, leaving things to fester in hopes they get better on their own can come back to bite you.
I also believe that they honestly misjudged the depth of anger on the part of some people in Iraq and the lengths they would go to rid themselves of the the Maliki government. And they misjudged the depth of the mess Maliki was making of simply governing Iraq.
And I do believe the US knows very well where IS get their money and weapons from, and has done little to stop that, so far.
Marcus, if the US could trace every dime that ISIL got, they would. From everything I have read the gulf states may have been funneling money to al-Nusra, an affiliate of al-Qaeda. ISIL has been very well funded by its oil & extortion operations. It is one of the richest terrorist organizations in history because of that. And my guess would be that we will start working on that, if they haven't already, with the bombing campaign.
If Quatar and Kuwait does something, like sponsor the IS, the US is liable as well. Because those countries would not have done that if the US had forbidden it. No way.
Seriously? Forbid it? They are sovereign states, just like Iraq. We are not all powerful, Marcus.
Do it Right This Time
Its history of secular and political division, not to mention bloodshed, notwithstanding, al-Abadi said Iraq can survive if Shiites and Sunnis can work together.
"I think we can. We have to," he added. "... This is our country. And if we don't work together, we don't deserve a country.
"... We have to work together. We have to give in to each other. And I'm prepared to do hard decisions. ... I expect others to do their own as well."
Skimming through the morning's news and editorials, it appears that it's slowly dawning on our media people that the Obama administration's ‘plan’ for fighting ISIS isn't really designed to take them out in the next few weeks or months. They're also beginning to figure out that those 1,700 or so soldiers and marines we've moved back into Iraq are indeed wearing boots, and that the ‘moderate’ Syrian rebels we're supposedly gonna be arming and training are little more than a continuing myth.
They don't seem to know what to do with these revelations.
Maybe a little later they'll figure out that Obama's plan is not going to take ISIS out at all. The concerns about the lack of a viable ally in Syria that were raised within moments of the Preznit's erstwhile speech have not been addressed at all, from what I can see.
Apart from making life a little less enjoyable for IS (a laudable aim in itself), an air campaign is not going to dislodge them. And ultimately the conditions that gave rise to IS will not go away until Sunni-friendly political accommodations are reached in Syria and Iraq. In Syria's case that seems a very long way off and Iraq may be little better.
"…the conditions that gave rise to IS will not go away until Sunni-friendly political
accommodations are reached in Syria and Iraq."
That'll only move the problem somewhere else, assuming it happens. I'm expecting both Iraq and Syria to break up into ethnic enclaves, which would qualify, I suppose, as a ‘Sunni-friendly political accomodation’. But that's not going to dissuade the radical elements from looking for another stomping ground. Radical Arabic Islam isn't going to go away any time soon.
The Barbarians Within…
No, this is not something that will play out in weeks or months. Nor did it just start. Our media is too used to the 10 second sound bite and the almost manic pace of social media forums. They are not the real world.
As for a viable ally in Syria, I have heard that there is a possibility of Saudia Arabia supplying boots on the ground in Syria. Yes, yes, I know, you don't have to say it. But if this fight is to be won, it will be necessary to re-think the characterization. As the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi, put it so eloquently on Fareed Zacharia's show on Sunday, this is a fight between humanity and in-humanity. We all need to decide which side we want to reside on.
Lee, that article was very good. He gets it. I was just thinking the other day that ISIL is a Frankenstein monster stitched together from the debris of people's broken dreams, selfish desires and twisted goals.
There is no change because people have been creating rebellions with no soul. That is exactly what I told Zeyad in my last comment on his blog when he got so mad at me. How can you have real change if you have no ideals except to merely change the tyrants in charge?
I agree, that article is well written. I'd like to know where the author falls in the political spectrum, though. Reminds me of a book review I read of The Closing of the Muslim Mind: How Intellectual Suicide Created the Modern Islamist Crisis. It sounds a bit right wing.
On the other hand, I'd like to know more about this alleged hijacking of Arab culture in the 11th century, if only because of the "history of science" angle. The potted biographies of Islamic scholars I've been reading are fascinating, and show them to be the true intellectual forebears of medieval European scientists -- not only in scientific knowledge but also their philosophy of science. They were developing the scientific method long before Bacon or Ockham came on the scene.
I've always assumed that the Reconquista and the decline of Islamic Europe stymied the further development of Islamic science, but that doesn't explain the lack of intellectual development in the Ottoman era, when Islam was politically resurgent. Did something go horribly wrong a millennium ago as these two authors seem to be saying?
"Our media is too used to the 10 second sound bite…"
They're gonna have real problems with the concept of ‘Arab boots on the ground’ for this project, ‘cause that's not gonna happen real soon. They'll have to get over the idea that we're gonna do it for them. Just telling ‘em isn't gonna convince ‘em.
So far our intervention has done little more than stop the ISIS advance. I think that's quite good enough for now. It's gonna take the Sunni powers some considerable length of time to get their heads around the idea that this is their problem first and foremost. We've helped stop ISIS advances against our Kurdish friends; we needed to do that. It's had the collateral effect of making the ISIS advances in other areas more difficult, to the benefit of Assad and the Mullahs, but that can't be helped. I say we hold position here and let the Arabs figure out they're in real trouble.
We don't need to rush this; wait for openings, pick our shots.
¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯¯
"I'd like to know where the author falls in the political spectrum, though."
I've not seen too many ‘liberal’ secular Arabs. They tend to go full-bore socialist at a minimum, or even outright communist, or to be fairly conservative.
As long as it is not too far right I think you can glean some incites into reading from that end of the spectrum, just as you can from the liberal side. That book sounds interesting, Pete, I may look it up. I have a coupon for Barnes & Noble that I have been trying very hard to resist using as I have too many books as it is. But when I run across temptation it is difficult to resist.
Did something go horribly wrong a millennium ago as these two authors seem to be saying?
Maybe it wasn't just one thing, but a cascade of things. In reading "The Swerve" I happened to run across a mention of Hypatia. There was an apparently great mind destroyed because of petty jealousy or feuding. Man may be his worst enemy.
"into" should be "in" :)
Hmmm...really I should re-write that whole comment, but I am pressed for time, so I will let it go.
They tend to go full-bore socialist at a minimum, or even outright communist, or to be fairly conservative.
I have noticed a black and white kind of thinking at times, kind of like you see in our far right or far left. Perhaps middle ground is less appealing because it is boring or easily swept aside by more extremist thinking?
Of course, it might already be too late for any change in the Middle East or elsewhere.
Lynnette: "As for a viable ally in Syria, I have heard that there is a possibility of Saudia Arabia supplying boots on the ground in Syria"
And that would aim towards the end of the Allawite community where Assad has his power base.
Thing is, the allawites know full well that they will be slaughtered en masse by the "sunni" rebels. They have no option but to fight on.
They win or they die, that's their choise.
"Thing is, the allawites know full well that they will be slaughtered en masse by
the ‘sunni’ rebels. They have no option but to fight on.
"They win or they die, that's their choise."
As the Sunni rebels learned way back in the 1980s, when they staged civil protests against Hafez Assad, Bashar Assad's father, the Alawite regime fights that same way.
That doesn't make it a good idea to support one side or the other, if you know there'll be a genocide either way. There's that troublesome concept of having to win the peace as well as the war. In Iraq, that tenuous hope hangs on Haider al-Abadi being less of a sectarian shitbag than Maliki. In Syria, there are no guarantees, which is why I share the widespread misgivings about involvement in that country. On the other hand, you can't attack IS in Iraq alone.
(On the third hand, I'm not impressed by al-Abadi's announcements about terror plots on France and the US -- sounds about as convenient as some of the "intelligence" around 2003 that turned out to come from Iran. It gives the impressions that al-Abadi may say anything he thinks the west wants to hear).
"…there are no guarantees…"
I think we can safely assume Marcus will complain about whatever the U.S.A. does; if we get more deeply involved in Syria, or if we don't. Whichever we do, he will insist that we should have done the other. That's damn near guaranteed.
Hmmm...going to the Renaissance Festival today. Maybe it's time I do a post on life rather than death, ey?
It's been like summer here the last few days. Nice weather for leaf vacuuming.
American bombers hit Kobane, Syria last night and into today. Kobane is halfway ‘cross Syria to the Mediterranean Sea, near middle of Syria, up near the border with Turkey. It's a Kurdish town. The Turks have been active against the Kurds moving around up there here of late. Apparently the Kurds are now getting some relief from the air. Presumably the Turks will not be excessively pleased.
OMG, that Renaissance Festival looks tacky ;-o
Nice weather here too. Hopefully the need for leaf vacuuming (not that I've ever done any) are reduced. The council came and cut down a twenty-year-old tree just beyond the garden wall, which had put out roots that cracked the wall and sent a dozen saplings sprouting around the garden. I must've pulled up twenty yards of root this summer, varying in thickness from the size of a finger to the size of a wrist. I've now stopped cursing the blighter and renamed it "Stumpy" ;-)
Obama is considering taking military action against Assad as well as ISIS. There's no way to tell how seriously they're considering it, but they are considering it.
Deputy NSA Advisor Tony Blinken was on FoxNewsSunday today saying that the administration was considering imposing a no-fly zone on Syria. That means they have to consider what happens if Assad decides to try to stop the planes enforcing said no-fly zone, which means engaging with his air-defense systems at a minimum They gotta know such actions might ramp-up into a full-on air campaign against Assad's entire air-defense system, including taking out his air force.
Kobane has been under contention between ISIL forces and the Kurds for some time. The defenders of the town have been asking for air support and questioning why it was taking so long. They had a piece on the news the other day showing the fighting going on with Kurdish supporters of the town lined up on a hill overlookng the fighting as if it were a spectator sport, cheering when their side scored a hit. A little surreal.
Considering that the fighting has caused a very large number of refugees to cross into Turkey, I'm thinking the Turks may be less concerned about the air strikes than you may think.
The Syrian opposition has been worrying that we are concentrating too much on ISIL and will leave them in the lurch when it comes to removing Assad. The no fly zone will be what Washington is considering to counter Assad. As for taking out Assad's air force to accomplish that, I don't think we had to completely eliminate Saddam's when we created the no fly zone in Iraq. But it really is only a stopgap measure. It won't solve the issue of Assad staying or going.
"I'm thinking the Turks may be less concerned about the air strikes than you may think."
We'll see.
Actually, Pete, those pictures you looked up make it look far more pretentious than it really is. lol! But it has been in existence for 45 years and I have never been to it. So when a friend called to see if I wanted to go I said sure. It looks like it will be moving to a different location in a couple of years because the company that owns the land, which the festival rents, wants to expand their silica sand mining operation. With the fracking in North Dakota going gangbusters that kind of sand is in great demand. They can make more money from sand than from the festival. Very sad for the folks at the festival though.
It was a nice day for walking around and looking at the various vendors wares and venues. I did have some very nice dark chocolate gelato. Yum. :)
The Turkish misgiving about bombing in Syria is because Kurds crossing the border to fight in Syria may also return to become PKK separatists. However, I see Erdogan yesterday spoke about how Turkey needs to be a leader in the fight against IS, which must be a relief to Kerry (or more likely the result of his efforts).
"The Turkish misgiving about bombing in Syria is because Kurds…may also
return to become PKK separatists."
So you say. There is also the fact that Erdoğan is a not too closeted Islamist himself. However that sorts out, I suspect Erdoğan is considering stepping up Turkey's involvement because he believes we're not putting his priorities on the top of our list. Our priority is beating back ISIS; he's got his own game to play.
I was talking to someone just the other day who is working out in North Dakota. There is no slow down at all, in fact, there are plans for many more wells out there. While the pipeline is still being held up they are busy training out the oil. It really is still an old fashioned "gold rush". If you are looking to invest, train stocks like BNSF, large equipment makers like Catarpillar, oil companies like Hess, are possible bets depending on their price. Hess may be on the high side at the moment.
The job market is still crazy as well. They are always looking for people for something or other. Although he was saying that the jobs in the Eagle Ford region of Texas are even more plentiful.
Being so close Minnesota is being directly affected through the filching of job seekers and monopolizing of the railroads. It can be hard to compete. And then there are the unexpected things like what is happening with the Renaissance Festival land. Not only are they stealing our people they are stealing our sand! *sigh*
I have a feeling that eventually Ireland will go the way of North Dakota. Best to get your sand stocks now while they are dirt cheap. ;)
I suspect Erdoğan is considering stepping up Turkey's involvement because he believes we're not putting his priorities on the top of our list.
lol! Isn't that just about everyone's reason for jumping on the bandwagon? Self interest is a big thing.
Any way you look at it there are differing motives on the part of everyone involving themselves in this fight with ISIL. That is probably par for the course. But right now the near and present danger is ISIL.
Airstrikes Ineffective According to ISIS Member
Only time will tell...
"Self interest is a big thing."
One of Erdoğan's interests may be in preventing another Kurdistan from arising in the remains of Syria. If you remember Zeyad's last map of ISIS territories, he had Syrian Kurds holding ground across Syria almost to the Mediterranean Sea. Erdoğan doesn't want to see another, or more, Kurdistan across his southern border. He's seemingly come to terms with a de facto independent Iraqi Kurdistan, but this is a whole ‘nother animal.
How far does the PKK operate in Turkey? The territory in Syria that the Kurds control is fairly small, compared to Iraq that is. Although maybe that's because ISIL has grabbed so much? I'm thinking that forming an independent Kurdistan made up of the various pieces may be part of a solution to the Islamic State problem and the restive Kurd problem. But it would entail four countries giving up territory. And, of course, it wouldn't solve the Sunni/Shia problem.
"How far does the PKK operate in Turkey?"
I believe the PKK has declared a ‘hudna’, a cease-fire, with the Turkish authorities, and is supposedly working for ‘peaceful’ change for the time being. The Turks don't much want any change that further empowers the Kurds, peaceful or not.
According to the CIA map, the Kurds are a majority in a sizable chunk of southeastern Turkey.
That is a sizable chunk of Kurdish territory in Turkey. Hmmm...yes, I can see why they would be a little concerned.
Add in some more area (I don't have a map for this) where the Kurds are the largest ethnic group (the balance being split between Turks, Turkomen, and Arabs). Erdoğan be somewhat twitchy ‘bout the Kurds maybe getting rambunctious and trying to take advantage of the current situation. Erdoğan instead wants Turkish advantage to come out of the current situtation.
Possible new wrinkle in the situation at Kobane.
So, the PKK be gettin’ twitchy too.
I finally got a chance to read the sand article you linked to. Very interesting. The changes being felt in this region are huge and not just for the communities adjacent to the sand mining. The clogged rail lines are causing problems for other industries in Minnesota, the trucks hauling in North Dakota are chewing up the roads and they are looking at building bypasses around some of the larger towns. That building boom that you are missing in Ireland is white hot in North Dakota. Single bedroom apartments in one city rent for $1,900.00 a month. While salaries are high that still takes a chunk out of your paycheck. Man camps are still common, but they are trying to increase housing. Companies in ND are always on the look out for workers as people quit when they find better pay or scheduling. For guys who have families back here the separation can be hard. The person I was talking to the other day has a 2 and 1 schedule. He works 2 weeks and has 1 off. With a wife and 5 year old daughter it is tough, but the money is too good. And the work is actually easier than his old job, which was in concrete.
And there is no end in sight. Private sources are saying that the US government's estimate of reserves is way low. This is not going away any time soon, which means that communities are going to have to adapt to all of these changes.
Oh, then I forgot about the Indian Reservation in North Dakota where they are building a new refinery. They have been cleaning up on fees, charging $25,000.00 for allowing about a dozen trucks to drive over their land.
"And there is no end in sight. Private sources are saying that the US government's estimate of reserves is way low. This is not going away any time soon, which means that communities are going to have to adapt to all of these changes."
I find that very interesting to hear from someone nearer the coalface (or is it the "oil face" ;-)
Here (but also in a lot of American commentary) there is a widespread belief that the fracking boom is a very temporary blip before the onset of a terminal decline in oil supplies. The fact that fracking output has seen exponential growth is dismissed with claims that individual wells show very high rates of decline, so there is no way that output can be much increased or even maintained.
Being demonstrably wrong for the last thirty years hasn't made the peak-oilers any less adamant that the oil supplies will fall of a cliff sometime around next Tuesday week.
I find that very interesting to hear from someone nearer the coalface (or is it the "oil face" ;-)
He was right before when the government was wrong.
Here (but also in a lot of American commentary) there is a widespread belief that the fracking boom is a very temporary blip before the onset of a terminal decline in oil supplies.
They keep finding larger reserves and not just in North Dakota. The Republicans may not be blowing smoke, Pete. These companies aren't investing billions of dollars to pump air.
Hopefully they will get a handle on the flaring off of the natural gas. That is a huge waste. But they have started fining companies for that, so eventually there will be a solution. They won't continue to waste the money that way.
Pete: "Being demonstrably wrong for the last thirty years hasn't made the peak-oilers any less adamant that the oil supplies will fall of a cliff sometime around next Tuesday week."
You know what they say Pete: if you argue a disaster is coming you'll be proven right sooner or later.
I've read up on the matter and my belief (which I stress is just a belief) is that Peak Oil is at worst some decades into the future. And that was my opinion before the fracking business got going.
There's Iraq for one thing where production could be increased drastically if the security situation would allow it. Then there's Iran where the production could also be incrreased dramatically if the political situation would allow it. Then there's the Arctic, which we know little proven facts about but which could be a potential energy bonanza. Add to that fracking and other possible new tehcnologies.
BUT: one day the Peak will inevatibly come upon us. That's a fact we can't escape. Will we be prepared? I seriously doubt it.
By that time it may not matter, Marcus, we will have more important things to worry about. 2050 is only 36 years away, and if the status quo remains the same we may be in for some serious climate change that will detrimentally affect all of us. As it is we will still see some change because of the current levels of CO2 in the atmosphere.
Post a Comment