Shofercia wrote:Fahran wrote:That's unfortunate, though it's difficult to fault citizens for trying to fill their stomachs and provide for their families. It's not too dissimilar from the old Roman practice of patronage.
Of course. I don't blame the citizens, I'm just pointing out that without Social Rights, it's very easy to take away Civil Rights, unless we're talking about Hollywood.Fahran wrote:There's a slight difference between the Kurds and the Libyans though. The Kurds are motivated principally by nationalism, an overarching ideology quite distinct from local kinship ties and interests. In the case of Libya, the violence is often between individual cities, tribal affiliations, and the like, most extremely localized and often only loosely aligned with a higher authority. I do get your point though.
If that's the case, explain this: https://warontherocks.com/2017/10/debun ... -and-iran/Iraqi forces did not “invade” Kirkuk. Rather, they entered Iraqi state territory through a negotiated settlement with some Kurdish officials. According to PUK official Bafel Talabani, the withdrawal of Peshmerga forces was essentially a tactical retreat from the Iraqi Army’s superior military power. It was an expected consequence of the Kurdistan Regional Government’s territorial overreach and the over-determined capabilities of its defense structures – unfortunately, however, not one expected by Barzani. Although the Kurdish security apparatus, including Peshmerga forces, courageously helped to push back ISIL, it is inherently vulnerable and internally divided.
Put more bluntly: one Kurdish faction betrayed another, and as a result the Iraqis took Kirkuk.Fahran wrote:I actually don't disagree with this. It would probably be one of my preferred conclusions to the conflict in Syria, though Assad transitioning from an autocratic to a democratic leader within a federal framework would not perturb me all that much either. My principal complaint isn't necessarily against dictatorship, but rather against poor governance more generally. Qaddafi and Assad mismanaged the political life of their nations and neglected to ensure the welfare of a substantial number of people. They indulged in their appetites, stumbled into needless international squabbles, and alienated important allies. They would not have faced popular uprisings had they governed virtuously.
That's true, but that can be said about the majority of Governments. Should all of them be toppled? If not, how do we handle the issue?Fahran wrote:No, but Milosevic was charged with war crimes and human rights abuses pertaining to the ethnic violence in Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina as well as in Kosovo. Some of his cabinet officials have even stated that he played an important role in the military decisions made in the early nineties, insinuating at least some degree of culpability. I do not believe that Milosevic was an ultra-nationalist so much as a political opportunist though, at least judging from descriptions of his character.
Fair enough, although the very same cabinet officials could've made those claims to get a lighter sentence. However, I'm talking about Kosovo, rather than the Yugoslav Civil War. North Kosovo has clear borders, which are, at least de facto, internationally recognized. Why not let them hold their own Referendum, like the Albanians had in South Kosovo?Fahran wrote:Yes, though that could easily devolve into independence if caution is not employed. At the very least Rojava should probably receive a degree of autonomy. As you mentioned previously, the Turkish occupation could foster some degree of unity between Arabs and Kurds.
I'm all for major autonomy gains for Rojava, provided that its people support autonomy. And if it leads to independence over time, I'd be ok with that, provided that enough time passes and it's not a spur of the moment decision.Fahran wrote:Qaddafi had mismanaged the military as well though. Had a force on par with the Iranian Revolutionary Guard or Saddam Hussein's Republican Guard met the rebels, it would have been a complete slaughter. As it happens, the Libyan army eventually broke and fell to peaces, and then everyone with a small grudge began defecting. Haftar for instance, though Qaddafi did stab him in the back before.
Haftar defected long before that. Being betrayed for doing your duty by the man whom you worshiped, is going to leave a very sour taste in your mouth.Fahran wrote:The GNC is horribly inept, but I'm not certain that Haftar would have the popular support to suppress all the tribal militias beyond Benghazi, his principal base of support. He'd almost be better off standing as a democratic leader, though I'm not certain he'd want to relinquish his hold on the military to do that.
If he relinquishes his hold on the military, he relinquishes his power base. He gets that. You don't want to be a democratic leader in name only. You need to be able to carry out your decisions, otherwise someone like Andrew Jackson might come along and say: "Haftar has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"Fahran wrote:You're right on that front, hence his violating red lines with impunity.
The problem is that now he might also be framed for it. If you want to go after a known car thief, it'd be easier to frame him for a car theft. I think we should have international monitors on the ground from all five UNSC permanent members, working together to prevent these abuses, but I doubt that they'll agree.Fahran wrote:You're forgetting about the Crimean Tartars and a decent number of ethnic Ukrainians, both of whom had rather vocal reservations about the reclamation of Crimea. Just as I don't expect Russia to partition the Crimea to appease ethnic minorities, I'm skeptical that Kosovo would bother ceding its northern territories to Syria under the present circumstances.
I doubt that Kosovo will be ceding anything to Syria
Yes, I know you meant Serbia, and I think that, eventually, Kosovo will do that, but I just wanted to be a smartass. Anyways, onto Crimea. One of the interesting things about Crimea, is that the Russians opened it up to International Tourism, and opened full access to Crimea. It's the West that's been punishing, or attempting to punish people for merely traveling to Crimea. So if the West is claiming that Russians are oppressing the People of Crimea, why not let their citizens travel to Crimea and be appalled? And if the Russians are so oppressive in Crimea, why open the floodgates and let oppression flow out of Russia? And where's all the news about the Crimean Oppression that's backed up by major factual trends?
The reality is that Crimea's not oppressed. By Russian Standards, by Eastern European Standards, or even by European Standards, Crimeans are loving it. One of the best sources on Russia is Russia Insider, because it's citizen journalism at its finest. Speaking of Crimea: https://russia-insider.com/en/case-crim ... ation/5584During his interview, President Putin stated that prior to Crimea’s annexation by Russia, a covert poll was conducted, showing 75% of Crimeans favoring unity with Russia. This is backed up by the results from RIA News, at 77%, and from Sevastopol News, at 80%...
After the Referendum, the Crimeans continued to tell anyone who’d listen in the West, through polling, that they wanted to be with Russia and that in their eyes the Referendum was legitimate, whether it’s Gallup’s 83% figure, GFK’s 82% figure, or Pew’s 88% figure. Irrespective of how the Crimean Referendum was conducted, the Will of the Crimean People is clear: Unity with Russia.
The Referendum’s numbers are similar. Roughly 80.4% of Crimeans turned out to vote on the Referendum and voted yes, as did 85.6% of the residents of Sevastopol. Considering that roughly about 15% of Crimeans live in Sevastopol, and 85% in the Peninsula, after adjusting those numbers we get a general voting tally of 81.2%, which is within the legitimate margin of error of 80%. The increase from 75% to 80% can easily be explained by President Putin’s pledge to provide massive economic assistance to Crimea.
Just the pure facts. I love it! With that said, let's take a look at the Demographics of Crimea:Russians - 65%
Ukrainians - 16%
Tatars - 12%
Others - 7%
For the sake of the argument, let's presume that Others and Ukrainians voted 90% like Russians. It's already a very generous assumption, but let's roll with it. We have that data - Sevastopol is primarily Russian, and even the Ukrainians in Sevastopol have been Russified. Even in Sevastopol, 14.4% of the residents opposed the Referendum, or didn't show up to the polls. So let's do some math: 65*0.856+23*0.856*0.9 = 55.64+17.72 = 73.36%. But the vote was 80.4%. Where's the other 7% coming from? Why the Crimean Tatars. But wait - they're 12% of the population, and 7% voted? That means the majority of Crimean Tatars supported Unity with Russia as well. How's that possible? Did CNN lie?
Of course. In fact, the Crimean Tatar "leadership" in Crimea was able to amass just 62,448 votes in the 2006 Crimean local election. By 2010, their numbers fell to 51,253 votes. They don't represent the Crimean Tatars. They represent their own wallets. But how many Americans are going to look at local Crimean Election Results? So the Western Press continues to brazenly lie and portray them as representatives of the Crimean Tatars, and anyone pointing out the facts is a Russian Bot.
The Crimean Tatars and Human rights watch disagree
Aren't there more Jews with Russian background than German one as result?
