|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though.
Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for.
|
On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for.
Well they do share the "needed" part.
|
On May 02 2017 22:55 OtherWorld wrote:
@lastpuritan :
I'm not really into the Turkish-Kurds conflict, but since your argumentation seems to rests a lot on the nation-state idea : why would Turks have the right to self-determine and be a nation-state, and Kurds (whom you apparently recognize to have a different culture) wouldn't ? I mean, if you consider that Turkey has fought against imperialists oppressors to become a free country (something which I don't disagree on), why don't you consider that Kurds are fighting an oppressor to become a free country ?
Do you have any suggestions for non-separatists Kurds and their will, which are estimated 14-15 millions who live all around the Turkey, including Turkish Kurdistan as well, and what are your thoughts on evenly populated areas where Turks also live but the PKK still put claim on, also Turkish investment on those areas, which are actually very important, airways, universities, pipelines, dams etc?
And I would like to hear your sincere thoughts for their constitution/ish autonomy manifesto that I highlighted in my previous post. Do you really want another communist country on Nato borders? I can post here Cemil Bayık's interview in Turkish (leader PKK commander) that he says current good relations with the US don't mean they're ideologically same and will always serving to their interest, nor the Russian one. He politely says we will be another North Korea-China alike country who will be the pain in the ass if we get enough power, one day or another.
Considering the field reality, freshly founded communist Kurdistan won't have free-market trades with Turkey, nor with central or northern Iraq because they usually clash with Northern Kurds and claim Barzani is capitalist? Their only option will be uniting with Syrian Kurdistan, which will naturally ally Iran-Russia like central Iraqis. If the US doesn't solve the YPG-TR crisis, Russian interest will win. Iraqi Kurds do very well with Turkey, Turkey buys their oil and Iraqi Kurds eat turkish products on markets, pretty fair trade between the two and very limited Russian-market interference.
It always sounds lovely to say self-determination but are they actually self determining or 20 millions of Kurds are being driven into a Maoist society because some 5 of them holds the power, arms and propaganda machines?
On May 02 2017 15:52 opisska wrote:
Lastpuritan: why do you consider changing your constitution to reflect the fact that all people who live on the area controlled by Turkish government aren't Turks to be such a big problem? The article 66 you have quoted is a terrible backwards concept and such declarations have no place in 21st century, get rid of it for the better. Why do you so insist on ruling all the area anyway, do you get a kick from the thought of having a large country? There is nothing conceptually wrong with the unification of Kurdistan using land that currently belongs to other countries, in particular because the current Syria and Iraq are completely random western creations anyway. There is nothing wrong with separatism and the insistence of keeping borders as drawn at some negotiation tables a century ago is one of the stupidest and most harmful ideas that exists on the planet right now. Yes, it happens in Europe as well and yes, it's equally stupid - well the Northern Ireland situation is complicated, because the populations are terribly intertwined and the region as a whole actually refused to secede, but for example Spain sabotaging the voting on independence of Catalunya is utterly imperialistic nonsense.
It doesn't really matter how "westernized" the Kurds are. The right of people for self-determination should not be based on how cool they look to us. If the Syrians actually wanted to live under the ISIS system, I'd be happy to let them (but we have pretty good indications that it's not the case). I have no idea how exact your translations of their constitution is, but if that's what they want, then so be it. Surely, if that's only a vocal majority, then no. But it should be definitely up to will of the local people, not the Turkish government.
Honestly, you sound like a big child. "They are the bad ones, we are the good ones" is the worst approach to any conflict you can ever have. Yes, they have done some terrible things to you, so have you to them, learn to forgive and hope to be forgiven.
I would like to hear your thoughts on the questions I asked to Otherworld. You can always use Google Translate to check if the translation is correct, I posted the links of their manifesto already in that post.
I like the idea of Turkey without Kurdistan, because if you travel to Western Turkey and then to Eastern Turkey you can understand the Middle East starts right after you pass Ankara borders. I don't want to seem racist but, let's say I don't like the idea of diverse society if that means the destruction of cultures or health of the functioning societies. Maybe Kurdish would be alive if they had their own country, or Turkish economy would be doing great without Kurdish burden, they have a bad habit on paying taxes/bills. But again, the very problem is, their model starts with Autonomy where Turkey does positive discrimination, send them money, no tax income from them, and then they'll decide to whether they'll stay or leave with a referendum. They're actually trying to get some sort of compensation and then bye.
Why would a citizen agree to pay extra taxes to compensate the Kurds (?) so that they can leave as rich as they can get, and then watch them establish a communist-nationalist state who will be hostile to their nation from the birth, and will try to suck Turkey dry every chance they can possibly find. I got one on my mind already, Turkey gets oil from Northern Kurdistan directly without paying taxes, communist kurdistan will be demanding money to transfer the oil or they'll simply blow the pipeline, like they do right now on a regular basis.
Funfact: I do believe one way or another Turkey will be warring Russia, and my Hearts of Iron experience tells me we need those caucasian mountains to be able to defend the Turkish capital.
|
On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part.
They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing.
|
On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though.
She can only get 45% if there is like 40% abstention, more realistically should be anywhere between 35 and 40%.
Macron's reform would probably be more integration, something like a unique minister of finance for the eurozone.
|
On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing.
Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters.
Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at.
|
On May 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing. Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters. Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at.
We have a centralized currency. Kohl and Mitterand set the EU up like that, so that there was no other way than to integrate further. You may not like it, but it is the only reasonable economical option for the Euro countries.
|
On May 03 2017 05:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing. Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters. Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at. We have a centralized currency. Kohl and Mitterand set the EU up like that, so that there was no other way than to integrate further. You may not like it, but it is the only reasonable economical option for the Euro countries.
Better hope the project as is has a future then. If it doesn't, then I'm afraid it's just going to be that much more painful when it all unravels. And I see no reason to believe that this populist wave is going to recede with any permanence at any point in the near future.
|
Even Le Pen is pivoting hard on this and has basically abandoned her Euro-critical position over the last week. I honestly doubt that Brexit is going to repeat with any of the countries already inside the currency union.
|
Yeah, I too doubt it. The other countries have much more to lose for them to be willing to risk an exit under the current terms. Though judging by the developments over the past ten years as I've seen them, it wouldn't surprise me if a decade from now a much more aggressive and costly wave of departures would manifest.
A widespread victory of Eurosceptics is at this point premature. But I don't think the EU has the means under its current structure to address its most existential issues so these problems will continue.
|
On May 03 2017 05:56 LegalLord wrote:
Yeah, I too doubt it. The other countries have much more to lose for them to be willing to risk an exit under the current terms. Though judging by the developments over the past ten years as I've seen them, it wouldn't surprise me if a decade from now a much more aggressive and costly wave of departures would manifest.
A widespread victory of Eurosceptics is at this point premature. But I don't think the EU has the means under its current structure to address its most existential issues so these problems will continue.
I think the EU will end up similar to Obamacare in the fact that it is already so ingrained that leaving has a bandage-ripping effect. Not to mention all the old folks dying aren't exactly bad for collectivism as a whole.
|
On May 03 2017 05:48 Big J wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing. Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters. Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at. We have a centralized currency. Kohl and Mitterand set the EU up like that, so that there was no other way than to integrate further. You may not like it, but it is the only reasonable economical option for the Euro countries.
Either more fiscal integration or dropping the euro works. Since the euro is pretty popular it won't get dropped though.
|
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions.
|
On May 03 2017 06:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions.
Just look at the US. The fact that you guys have pulled off what you have is amazing. The EU is more united than the US.
|
On May 03 2017 05:51 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:48 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing. Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters. Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at. We have a centralized currency. Kohl and Mitterand set the EU up like that, so that there was no other way than to integrate further. You may not like it, but it is the only reasonable economical option for the Euro countries. Better hope the project as is has a future then. If it doesn't, then I'm afraid it's just going to be that much more painful when it all unravels. And I see no reason to believe that this populist wave is going to recede with any permanence at any point in the near future.
It's a pyramid scheme. It is going to unravel at some point, because there is only so much debt a country can take and only so much inequality people are going to take. The EU is just a scapegoat, because people blame what they can see, which is globalism and migration. But these things are rooted in information technology, transport, automatization and so on and have little to do with the EU itself. It just works as a catalysator in certain areas.
The simply question is just how it is going to unravel or whether the planet is going to go down before that anyways. I wouldn't take a bet at the moment, the nationalists are trying hard to make both of them come together rather sooner than later.
On May 03 2017 06:12 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 05:48 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:44 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:33 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:27 LegalLord wrote:On May 03 2017 05:18 Big J wrote:On May 03 2017 05:14 LegalLord wrote:
Le Pen slowly crawling upward in the polls. We only have a few days left so it's too late for any real chance of an upset but I suppose squeezing out something like 45% could be considered a moral victory?
Looking forward to the vague and unspecified, but needed, reforms to the EU that Macron is going to advocate for though. Sounds like the vague and unspecified reforms you keep on advocating for. Well they do share the "needed" part. They share being unspecified, so one can bitch about them not happening whatever happen, or in the case of Macron them happening, despite nothing of essence changing. Meh. Given a fair few specifics with what is wrong and what needs to change (a little less on the "how" admittedly, because there is seldom a simple answer there), much more than the standard "the EU needs some form of reform" talking point that Macron mentioned in an obvious grab for a few potential Le Pen voters. Of course I'm being a wee bit facetious because it's not actually particularly unclear what they want: further integration as a solution for the EU's woes with integration. But it's not particularly fashionable to word it that way so it's worth poking fun at. We have a centralized currency. Kohl and Mitterand set the EU up like that, so that there was no other way than to integrate further. You may not like it, but it is the only reasonable economical option for the Euro countries. Either more fiscal integration or dropping the euro works. Since the euro is pretty popular it won't get dropped though.
I don't see how you would drop the Euro in an ordered fashion, that doesn't cause chaos in some countries. Not to mention that there are other interests in the Euro, like China being heavily invested. Dropping the euro would probably cause a global crisis of epic proportions.
|
On May 03 2017 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 06:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions. Just look at the US. The fact that you guys have pulled off what you have is amazing. The EU is more united than the US.
Considering the refugee crisis is the first real issue the EU has not been able to avoid, I would say they are doing fine. The UK’s vote to leave is an issue, but someone was going to pull that trick at some point. Might as well be the UK.
|
I don't expect any serious obstacles to reforming the treaties after we finish negotiating the Brexit deal. Obviously it will take years to prepare any meaningful changes but that sounds like a good starting point.
|
On May 03 2017 06:22 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2017 06:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions. Just look at the US. The fact that you guys have pulled off what you have is amazing. The EU is more united than the US. Considering the refugee crisis is the first real issue the EU has not been able to avoid, I would say they are doing fine. The UK’s vote to leave is an issue, but someone was going to pull that trick at some point. Might as well be the UK.
The continent, formally under EU banner now or just the treaty of rome has had plenty of issues that we could not avoid. Just look at the separatism situation in in the 70/80s and the Balkan wars. It wasn't all sunshine until we ran into the refugee crisis of 2015 as if we're in some Spielberg movie. We've had plenty of crises, many much worse than this before and we'll probably have a ton of them in the future.
I think people bought way too heavily into this Fukuyama story of the end of history and are now confused that there are still conflicts. Somehow I feel like the perspective is just as bad as the actual problems
|
On May 03 2017 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 06:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions. Just look at the US. The fact that you guys have pulled off what you have is amazing. The EU is more united than the US.
It is not. Or at the very least, I would hope that it isn't
|
On May 03 2017 06:33 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On May 03 2017 06:22 Plansix wrote:On May 03 2017 06:16 Mohdoo wrote:On May 03 2017 06:12 Nyxisto wrote:
I've given up on any grandiose prediction after the last two years but institutions of the scale of the European Union pretty much always limp along from year to year, it's basically impossible for it to function in a way that makes people say "yeah this is flawless! good job!", people will be sceptic about its future by definition.
The whole idea was to tie the European nations together to the point where they can't unravel it even if they want to. The US turned into a real nation only after a bloody civil war so... who knows. Conflict isn't always the end of unions. Just look at the US. The fact that you guys have pulled off what you have is amazing. The EU is more united than the US. Considering the refugee crisis is the first real issue the EU has not been able to avoid, I would say they are doing fine. The UK’s vote to leave is an issue, but someone was going to pull that trick at some point. Might as well be the UK. The continent, formally under EU banner now or just the treaty of rome has had plenty of issues that we could not avoid. Just look at the separatism situation in in the 70/80s and the Balkan wars. It wasn't all sunshine until we ran into the refugee crisis of 2015 as if we're in some Spielberg movie. We've had plenty of crises, many much worse than this before and we'll probably have a ton of them in the future. I think people bought way too heavily into this Fukuyama story of the end of history and are now confused that there are still conflicts. Somehow I feel like the perspective is just as bad as the actual problems
I meant to be more specific to the post USSR era. That was my mistake.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
