|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On December 05 2016 07:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:25 Slaughter wrote:
Trump loses the popular vote by over 3 million and suddenly the Dems are in a crisis? Tiny shift and Clinton is president elect and as a some posters in this thread like to do, a lot of that could be seen as flaws of Clinton herself and her campaign strategy (or at least perceived flaws). Trump won despite facing tremendous headwinds due to a relentless negative campaign against him. Anyone else pushing substantially the same platform would have blown the opposition out. Of course, we are going to have to wait 4 years to really see the fall out, but democrats shouldn't downplay how precarious their political position is.
I am sorry but are you actually serious? What platform? Frankly considering how little "platform" there actually was in his campaign one of the things I truly cannot understand from over here (where my access is limited to internet media) is how this campaign actually worked. Did no one at all actually ask him to elucidate some of his points?
This week one of our newspapers tried to do a comparison of his campaign promises and what he has actually done to prepare in the last 3 weeks, and were pretty shocked that not a single one of his promises is in any way a working plan. Instead they sound like bullet points in a "what slogan should we use" list....
Frankly our own election (which passed today, the green candidate won since someone asked a few hundred pages ago  ) was bad enough and a emotional slugfest instead of a reasoned discussion. Your own campaign on the other hand truly makes me doubt where your country is going. Not because the "wrong candidate" was elected (if there ever was such a thing) but because it didn't look as if a single useful point of policy was discussed. You call something a relentless negative campaign frankly it was far too friendly to him instead. Everything was fake outrage and fake scandals just to generate views in the media.
He has said and done at least 20 things which should have immediately disqualified him from office, but it seems a sizeable minority of your country just doesn't care how racist, sexist and uninterested in paying taxes someone is (just on the top of my head the 3 things I can reliably remember). Fair enough, but what do your voters actually KNOW when they head to the polls? This time it seems no one knows anything about either of the two candidates and that is what truly scares me.
The internet has done many great things and made a lot of things easier. Nowadays i can read 3 US newspapers a day by getting my epaper on my kindle, but it seems breitbart and similar sites (gawker, buzzfeed, facebook, huffpo etc.) have successfully eroded the media culture we rely on for democracy to work.
Sorry to unload on you such a long post, and yes only the first two paragraphs truly deal with your own post. Everything beyond that is just my general frustration with this election/year you could take almost the same message over to the brexit thread where similar missinformation/dirty campaigning ruled the day.
|
On December 05 2016 05:15 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +When counted against the total number of votes cast for presidential candidates who qualified for Washington’s ballot this year, Libertarian Gary Johnson notched just over 5 percent.
Not only does that total put him well above all other third party candidates on the ballot this year; it alsoputs the Libertarians just past the 5 percent threshold for “major party” status in Washington state. With that status—granted to any party whose presidential candidate gets 5 percent or more of the vote—comes various state-sponsored amenities, including precinct elections, primary elections, and automatic inclusion on the state’s 2020 presidential ballot.
However, things are not that simple, and the complications surrounding the count could result in a lawsuit. Here’s why: While Johnson hit the 5 percent mark among ballots cast for official candidates, if write-in votes are counted, his tally appears to dip below the 5 percent threshold.
Dave Ammons, spokesman for the Secretary of State’s office, says state law is clear: Write-in ballots count when calculating percentages for major-party status. The official language in the code is “total votes cast,” which he says clearly indicates write-in votes. This year, perhaps as a result of the unpopularity of both major party candidates, write-ins spiked to 107,000, with another 43,000 not voting for any candidate. In 2012, only 47,000 people who turned in their ballots chose to write in a candidate or not cast a vote for any presidential candidate.
“I haven’t seen the final calculation yet, but once the 107,000 presidential write-ins are added to the tally for the seven tickets, it appears the Libertarians will drop below the 5 percent,” Ammons says.
The Libertarian Party is taking a different stance.
Michael Pickens, a former state party chairman who is still active in leadership, tells Seattle Weekly that by the party’s reading of state law, only write-in votes cast for people who filed as official write-in candidates should be considered legitimate votes. “According to their own [laws], the write-in vote should not count unless the write-in candidate filed a write-in campaign,” he says.
This is tricky territory. The state does allow people to file as an official write-in candidate. However, election offices do not bother to see how many write-in votes those “official” candidates get compared to, say, how many people wrote in Mickey Mouse, unless the total number of write-in ballots exceeds the number of ballots cast for the top on-ballot vote-getter. The logic here is that it would be a complete waste of time to go through and read every write-in vote when there is no chance it could sway the election.
Even stranger, even if the state did count the write-in ballots, it wouldn’t actually make a distinction between write-ins cast for candidates who filed with the state as write-ins and those who didn’t. Source
So basically, all those useless general election votes for Bernie Sanders, Mickey Mouse, Jesus, and anyone else voters foolishly wrote on their ballots just stopped a third party from gaining "major party" status? I thought that most of the people who wrote in other names did so to protest the two-party system... Not to perpetuate it! That's terribly ironic.
|
On December 05 2016 07:16 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:10 xDaunt wrote:
Hillary won the debates overall, but Trump won on the most important issues, which proved decisive. Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions? You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread). It's the way I engage because it's the truth; reality is vague and unclear; the high sort of certainty most people use is unsound and inaccurate. and actual rigorous thought often requires starting a much more basic level than most people use, without a proper foundation discussions often fall apart for lack of shared points. I can't account for their effects on a trump victory specifically, as I'm unsure which ones had an effect on the people who actually changed their votes (either from one to another or between voting/not voting). I'd say generally it's likely some of them had an effect, though I haven't heard much to isolate any ones in this context. The X-ist one is the complaint I most heard actually cited by people, with the SJW one probably second. At any rate, I'm disinclined to engage closely, since you didn't answer my questions either.; which is especially problematic since the answers to many of my statements are vital for the foundation of a discussion.
It's an interesting discussion zlefin, and while you may be right in that a lot of the things discussed here are difficult to be certain about, speaking in such a wishy washy manner is just very difficult to engage with. It's a big fucking problem in medicine right now, language used is very defensive and used to shield oneself from any future litigation. Guess who hates it? Patients, other clinicians who have to read said documentation. This is incredibly apparent in medical imaging where the entire field is related to uncertainties and subjective findings, and yes the clinicians are being very truthful when they say "could be x, could be y, can't rule out z" but it becomes a habit and eventually is used a shield to protect oneself from ever making a commitment or being wrong out of fear. It is more respectable to say "i don't fucking know" than the type of shady and weak language used these days. Patients and clinicians love it when radiologists specifically take a stance and risk being right/wrong when they commit to something, even though they may be more accurate if using weaker language. I see some of the parallels in your and other's posting style, in that an effort to be so accurate ultimately makes it difficult to engage because there is nothing worth debating there. Ultimately it's a video game forum and it doesn't matter at all, but for politicians the electorate wants, CRAVES certainty. It is probably the biggest part of Trump's charisma, because of his self-assuredness in the face of all uncertainty about his own policies. He could be entirely wrong, just like a lot of medical professionals, but it's important to take a chance if you are in those positions because it alleviates a lot of the stress on the electorate/patients.
|
On December 05 2016 08:07 biology]major wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 07:16 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 06:55 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 06:30 zlefin wrote:On December 05 2016 05:49 Danglars wrote:On December 05 2016 04:30 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 04:15 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 04:07 LegalLord wrote:On December 05 2016 03:53 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On December 05 2016 03:14 LegalLord wrote:
[quote]
Though we certainly did all underestimate how much support Trump would get for his position on some of those issues. And those positions on those issues stem from fear, hate, and a general lack of education... Hopefully things we can improve upon in the future. The "your an idiot if you don't agree with this interpretation of how things should be" so-called "intellectual high ground" certainly doesn't help in that regard. Disagreement with that sentiment was also bigger than people gave and continue to give credit for. I agree that it's important to attempt a sincere dialogue with those who have different beliefs, but at the same time there are other situations where I feel the need to say "You know what? No, there's no legitimacy to the conspiracies that Obama is a Muslim and Hillary is an alien and transsexuals just care about raping kids in bathrooms and gay couples are destroying the sanctity of marriage and all Muslims are terrorists and women should be objectified and all Hispanics are rapists and all blacks are murderers or drug dealers." Interpretations and opinions and beliefs aren't inherently worthy of respect just because they exist; they earn respect only if they're grounded in fact and reality. We shouldn't shrug and say that two different opinions are necessarily equal in terms of respectability. Fair enough - and I'm sure that most people from both sides would denounce that bizarre conspiracy theory stuff. But then you should also take credit for the stupid shit leftists do - starting the birther/Muslim/Kenya movement during a desperate time in Hillary's 08 run, playing off identity politics for the purpose of pulling minority voters into their camp, spawning the SJWs, giving leftist credibility to anti-Israeli sentiments that mask a very explicit "destroy Israel" agenda, tying themselves ridiculously hard to the epitome of a status quo candidate, and using racist/idiot/sexist/xenophobe/bigot as a means to dismiss people who do not support a certain leftist agenda. And the latter is often the problem more so than any actual monopoly on stupidity by Trump voters or Republican voters or any such thing. The reasons for people to choose one candidate or another are often stupid or misguided, whether they voted Clinton, Trump, Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Vermin Supreme. Could you imagine if the left took credit for this? I don't expect them to lead with their undesirable factions while discussing the state of the party--no way. But when pressed, I mean cmon, acknowledge the other themes and impacts even when they reflect badly on what you and others stand for. It's disgusting the way the narrative switched from racist Trump supporters to stupid Trump supporters. If you want to call a spade a spade, call it on both sides so we know it's not just partisan rhetoric. LL nailed it, even with the much-neglected Israel issue. many of the people here have admitted to these factions existing on the left. How many of the people on the left have to admit to their existence? I ask since there ewill surely always be some who deny it. so I'd want to know at what level it's considered satisfactory for you. And what you think the level is now. At what point are you free to disavow people from belonging to your side? There is of course the more complicated issues of sides; not everyone on the left considers some of the loonier people to be part of "their" side. Though others who are more distant may consider them to be part of the "same" side. different assignation of sides can be a real problem. PS to what extent do you think the right takes credit for their undesirable factions? You have opportunity here to respond to the specifics of LL's post I quoted. Otherwise, I must assume it's another of your "it may or may not be true, some have done this, many have done this other thing, generally not this but usually that" sort of engagement. I don't want to harp on you specifically, because just last page you were attacked for your tone deafness. I see no need to pile on. You can point to any number of quoted groups and their contribution to a Narrow Trump victory at your leisure instead of claiming it's been done before (diminished, denied, wholesale dismissed, and misdirected in this thread). It's the way I engage because it's the truth; reality is vague and unclear; the high sort of certainty most people use is unsound and inaccurate. and actual rigorous thought often requires starting a much more basic level than most people use, without a proper foundation discussions often fall apart for lack of shared points. I can't account for their effects on a trump victory specifically, as I'm unsure which ones had an effect on the people who actually changed their votes (either from one to another or between voting/not voting). I'd say generally it's likely some of them had an effect, though I haven't heard much to isolate any ones in this context. The X-ist one is the complaint I most heard actually cited by people, with the SJW one probably second. At any rate, I'm disinclined to engage closely, since you didn't answer my questions either.; which is especially problematic since the answers to many of my statements are vital for the foundation of a discussion. It's an interesting discussion zlefin, and while you may be right in that a lot of the things discussed here are difficult to be certain about, speaking in such a wishy washy manner is just very difficult to engage with. It's a big fucking problem in medicine right now, language used is very defensive and used to shield oneself from any future litigation. Guess who hates it? Patients, other clinicians who have to read said documentation. This is incredibly apparent in medical imaging where the entire field is related to uncertainties and subjective findings, and yes the clinicians are being very truthful when they say "could be x, could be y, can't rule out z" but it becomes a habit and eventually is used a shield to protect oneself from ever making a commitment or being wrong out of fear. It is more respectable to say "i don't fucking know" than the type of shady and weak language used these days. Patients and clinicians love it when radiologists specifically take a stance and risk being right/wrong when they commit to something, even though they may be more accurate if using weaker language. I see some of the parallels in your and other's posting style, in that an effort to be so accurate ultimately makes it difficult to engage because there is nothing worth debating there. Ultimately it's a video game forum and it doesn't matter at all, but for politicians the electorate wants, CRAVES certainty. It is probably the biggest part of Trump's charisma, because of his self-assuredness in the face of all uncertainty about his own policies. He could be entirely wrong, just like a lot of medical professionals, but it's important to take a chance if you are in those positions because it alleviates a lot of the stress on the electorate/patients.
a very sound post.
I agree that alot of people crave certainty.
There are times where projecting certainty has value.
My complaint about docs in such situation (compared to my style) is that the docs don't give me enough info, and I'm a person who likes info. I'd like to know the entire list of maybes; what things indicate/contraindicate certain possibilities; and what courses of action are likely to best differentiate between the possibilities. Often they don't proffer sufficient such information.
but false certainty also carries high costs. if you go too far down an incorrect path you can cause a great deal of damage.
Which is why I'd say it's more important to run an expected utility assessment factoring in the various possibilities and ensuring your actions have a decent overall outcome profile.
It's necessary to choose an action and omve forward, but it's unnecessary to definitively conclude something as true to do so.
I agree many of my posts are very wishy-washy. In fairness some of the posts I object to also have issues with the claim or the standards used for it being sufficiently vague that they can find some ways to semi-plausibly argue they're right.
If a post is too vague to usefully argue with, it's fine to simply say so, or ignore it.
Sometimes I respond to such posts with clarification requests, to get something sufficiently grounded that I can argue against.
e.g. if someone complains "there's too many SJWs, it's a real problem."
how many is too many? at what point are they sufficiently fringe to not be a problem?
I might disagree with their sentiment, but it's hard to argue with because too many SJWs could mean >25% of the populace, nearly everyone at a university, or a few random people somewhere.
it gets even harder because a lot of people use dumb/bad definitions of SJW; just as some people overuse the terms racist/bigot and apply them too freely, some people apply the term SJW too freely. which means to address their claim I have to first go through their SJW classification system, and it often takes some time to even realize they're using weird definitions; and figure out which actual behaviors are the problems.
PS if asked a pointed question I'm more likely to give a pointed answer. not sure which other factors are most likely to elicit a pointed clear answer from me.
|
|
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
Even if alliances don't come into play that war would make Iraq and Afghanistan look like chump change.
|
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages.
You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent.
Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran.
|
On December 05 2016 10:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages. You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent. Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran.
I know that; I just didn't want to belabor that point;
going into the details of "rather not have a war with Iran" seemed rather unnecessary.
Though I'd strongly doubt Iran could take out multiple carriers unless the carriers go recklessly close; even taking out one would be pretty hard for them.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
War with Iran and any regime change would be a disaster for the ages. It would make Iraq look like a peaceful transition.
Should qualify that, if US does it with the same ignorance and incompetence as in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a disaster that will dwarf anything we have seen in the middle east so far.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On December 05 2016 10:20 TanGeng wrote:
War with Iran and any regime change would be a disaster for the ages. It would make Iraq look like a peaceful transition.
Should qualify that, if US does it with the same ignorance and incompetence as in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a disaster that will dwarf anything we have seen in the middle east so far.
All indications show that no lessons were learned in Iraq since the same kind of mistakes happened in further MidEast ventures.
|
|
|
On December 05 2016 10:20 TanGeng wrote:
War with Iran and any regime change would be a disaster for the ages. It would make Iraq look like a peaceful transition.
Should qualify that, if US does it with the same ignorance and incompetence as in Afghanistan and Iraq, it will be a disaster that will dwarf anything we have seen in the middle east so far.
considering the Trump team so far and their plans unfortunately I doubt Trump has seen inside job which means he's probably not seen No end in sight either cause its by the same director.
|
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
The real obstacle would be religious getting the right imams to support such a transition.
The lessons learned in the recent middle east conflicts is that third world nations can't be trusted with first world forms of government. You shouldn't fault people for expecting the best of their fellow man.
On December 05 2016 10:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 10:12 zlefin wrote:
I'd rather not have a war with Iran.
But if they do decide one; at least come up with a good and thorough aftermath plan.
And try to keep some parts of the gov't functional enough to handover power to, so we don't have to stay there for ages. You miss the part where Iran is actually a real military opponent. Like, a "a US offensive might result in the loss of at least one if not more carriers" military opponent. And that's if no one is willing to send troops to defend Iran.
Iran isn't a real Miliatry opponent for The united states military don't be silly. They have no way of contesting the air past air defenses the Military has been preparing for 30 odd years. Lets not even consider tanks, sure it'll be something more then Iraq and Afghanistan but Iraq and Afghanistan would have had a weak military for decades ago.
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east.
|
On December 05 2016 11:05 TanGeng wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east.
Iran wasn't chooped us as much as the rest of the middle east by the british and is largly an persian-shia country with a rather domesticated kurdish and azerbarjani minorities.
|
United Kingdom13775 Posts
|
Your source is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. It asks for donations it doesn't say where it gets the estimates or how it gets its estimates past "gee Iran looks like its x larger then iraq in population lets just multiply rough guesstimate from what we thing the total occupation of iraq was and say its the same thing",
|
What are the chances that this is over?
Federal officials will not provide a permit that would allow the proposed Dakota Access Pipeline to cross under Lake Oahe in North Dakota, a government representative announced Sunday, a decision that set off celebrations among the thousands of protesters who have spent months camped out on the land in an effort to block construction efforts.
Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Army's assistant secretary for civil works, said she based her decision on a need to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing. This comes three weeks after a November 14 announcement from her office that delayed the decision after protests from the Standing Rock Sioux tribe and its supporters.
"Although we have had continuing discussion and exchanges of new information with the Standing Rock Sioux and Dakota Access, it's clear that there's more work to do," Darcy said in her statement. "The best way to complete that work responsibly and expeditiously is to explore alternate routes for the pipeline crossing."
Darcy said the consideration of alternative routes would be best accomplished through an environmental impact statement with full public input and analysis, delivering both an immediate reprieve and political statement that could aid in future showdowns with President-elect Donald Trump's incoming administration.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/04/politics/dakota-access-pipeline/index.html
|
Sanya12364 Posts
On December 05 2016 11:09 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On December 05 2016 11:05 TanGeng wrote:On December 05 2016 10:52 Sermokala wrote:
The real war with Iraq and Afghanistan was chump change compared to any other action called a war. I would think rebuilding it would be a lot easier with the democratic institutions already in place and the lack of large scale sectarian conflict potential.
Where are you saying doesn't have large scale sectarian potential? Surely you aren't talking about any country in the middle east. Iran wasn't chooped us as much as the rest of the middle east by the british and is largly an persian-shia country with a rather domesticated kurdish and azerbarjani minorities.
Shia is true. Persian is only 55% of the population.
While Iranian nationalism is the dominant social force now, it doesn't preclude such ethnic differences from bubbling up if there is another round of revolutions. Kurdish ethnic nationalism may very well uncork similar sentiments in other segments of the population.
You have the major two minorities, Azari and Kurds. There's a large number of Lors, the Bakhtiari.
There's Arabs in the gulf, Turkmen up north. Balochs in Bolochistan in the south. A series of ethnicities along the Caspian Sea.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
