onegoodmove

Just another part to the Uzbekistan story:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/asia-pacific/4731411.stm

Very interesting article from Harper´s on the American Christian Paradox... thanks Norm!

I'm very interested to see how the K2 business plays out. My guess is that the US will withdraw aid, and depending on whether or not Tashkent has worked out a deal with Moscow and Beijing, they'll cut their losses and enjoy their rebuilt air base or grudgingly let the US back.

This is a major problem for the US, since Afgahnistan doesn't have sufficient infrastructure for their needs, Tajikistan's roads to Afghanistan are not good enough for continued transport, and Kyrgyzstan does not actually border Afganistan.

I'll actually be in Uzbekistan later this month for about 10 days, so I'm curious as to how things will work out.

As for the TNR link, he's right about Ignatius's naïveté and/or ignorance about Lebanon's civil war. It absolutely wrecked the country, and 15 years later, Lebanon is still rebuilding. Furhter, tensions are mounting there, with some Maronites calling for the expuslion of all Palestinian refugees (who are barred from certain professions, cannot buy land, have no nationality and make up over 15 percent of Lebanon's population).

Furthermore an Iraqi civil war would probably mean that the Kurds kick out some Arabs from their land, set up their militia to guard the borders of the new Kurdistan, while the Shia and Sunni fight it out. However, there's a good chance that both Iran and Saudi Arabia would support (at least unofficially, if not overtly) the Shia and the Sunni, respectively.

But that's not all. Since Kurdistan is a threat to 3 middle eastern nations (Turkey, Syria and Iran, in that order), there's a good chance that Ankara, Damascus and Tehran will each have their word to say about Iraqi Kurdistan, for fear that their Kurdish populations will finally have a Kurdistan to join. And that word will inevitably be "NO." So a civil war, which may or may not have already begun, would likely involve at least three other nations (Turkey, Iran and Saudi Arabia) and possibly a fourth (Syria).

NEWS FLASH: Bolton appointed. Bush bypasses Senate. Ushers in dictatorship.

The Fourth Horseman has assumed his steed and will ride in to crush the French-loving pinkos at the U.N. I wonder which freedom-hating country is next in line to be crushed? Iran, Syria, Cuba...

I was so pleased to see the article on the Christian Paradox. It frustrates me to no end when my supposedly "christian" friends can't tell me the story of creation or the basic principals of the bible.

Agitprop: The Bolton appointment is far from a power grab. Rather it shows how weak Bush is and how weak his nominee is. Even if Bolton were confirmed, we would have had more no votes than all the UN Ambassadors from the past 80 years combined. Everyone in the UN knows that he is a compromised ambassador would probably would only get the support of about a third of the senate if it weren't for party loyalty.

Incidentally the recess appointment shows that Bush really isn't serious about reform in the UN. Who could be a worse person for the cause of reform than a guy who doesn't have the support of the senate and has said that the UN doesn't exist?

The UN Ambassador is not anything like a supreme court justice. His boss is the president and he has to do whatever the president says. The president can fire him if he wants. Bolton was a ridiculous choice, but anyone else would have only been marginally better. Appointments to the judiciary, however, matter a whole lot more, and the opposition should in general put much more effort into criticizing and attacking them. If Roberts is confirmed (he will be) he will be in office for far longer than Bush will be. In all likelyhood in 15-20 years he will cast decisive votes on issues we're not even talking about now.