<November Statistics UpdatesThe Oil DrumWhereever you came from...>

241 comments on World Nuclear Panel Refers Iran to the Security Council

Comments can no longer be added to this story.

LevinK on February 5, 2006 - 12:53pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Considering the timeframe of the Iran "occupation", I'd rather compare it to the US occupation of California, Texas and New Mexico.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on February 5, 2006 - 2:34pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
First, Italy invaded Ethiopia in 1935 and the League of Nations put sanctions on it, but they did not include oil. Italy had esentially no oil. It had not been discovered in her Libyan colony. By excluding oil they could not stop Italy from conquering Ethiopia. Oil sanctions might have worked and the actions not taken helped propel us towards World War II.

Doesn't this all sound eerily current?

There is an active Kurdish resistance movement active in Iran. Kurds are concentrated in the north-west side of Iran and are about 7-8% of the population. The Azeri people (24-25% of Iran) have been resisting an "Iranization" of their provinces for decades. There is also a Baloch movement in the south-east corner, but right now it is mostly directed towards Pakistan. They are a very small minority.  

People of Persian decent number about 50% of the population in Iran.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 5, 2006 - 2:59pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
As far as I understand USA should encourage and support the Balkanisation of Iran like they did with Serbia and Iraq.

If this is your position I'd like to hear the arguments, especially what are those long-term contributions to the peace and prosperity this would bring.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 5, 2006 - 7:00pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Support them how?  Like they supported Afganistan in the 1980s?  Like they supported Saddam in the 80's?  Like they supported Viet Nam in the 60's?  Like Iran and Korea in the 50's (still at war, now with nukes)?  What's your definition of support?  What would be the final goal?  Set up separate countries for all of them, like Palestine?  Viet Nam only stabilized after the US retired.  Or do you think Viet Nam was an unusual case?  Sorry, I don't get it.
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 5, 2006 - 7:56pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Reading just the first sentence of one's post is a very bad habbit that I'm also trying to kick out :)
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Gets IT on February 5, 2006 - 8:12pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
I really did read all your post, and didn't intend to direct my questions toward you personally.  I meant it for anybody attempting to answer your propositions to take a deep dip into the think tank before they did, but I do now see that it does look like I had you in my starscope.  <sorry>
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 5, 2006 - 9:06pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
No problem, happens all the time
0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on February 5, 2006 - 11:36pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
LevinK,

The idea that nations are not divided on ethnic lines is a fault line that has impacted the modern world heavily. That is why it was so cool when Czechoslovakia simply became two separate states with no real problems. Unlike Yugoslavia. The Balkans is made even worse with little pockets of this or that person scattered haphazardly across the mountainous terrain.

Nigeria is another one. Not only does it include, because of colonial decisions made in the 19th century, different tribes, but you can throw in different religions too.

Personally, a Kurd nation state makes sense to me though Iran and Turkey would not be happy campers. That there are more Azeri's in Iran than in their home country is simply a problem waiting to happen.

We see it in the so-called progressive EU with the Basques, Catalonians, Corsica, Irish, etc. Heck, 10,000 Germans living in Denmark caused problems in 1933 and again in 1940.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
LevinK on February 6, 2006 - 10:59am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Actually things got worse both for Chech Republic and Slovakia after they split. After several years of high growth the Chechs experienced a financial crisis after which thinggs pretty much slowed down.

In the meantime Slovakia's development basicly stalled and the country started lagging behind. Slovakia has much less of an industrial base and resources than the Chechs and goes by with agriculture, tourism and services.

Both countries have high unemployment though lower than Poland. High unemployment seem to be a marking sign for countries that have been separated one way or another and could not attract foreign investments (mostly due to the instability, crime and corruption following the split). For example in Bosnia and Kosovo, unemployment is close to 40% and the most profitable (and wide-spread) business is drug and weapons traffic.

Considering the level of development of ME countries, splitting Iraq/Iran in pieces would be the mostly disastrous scenario for the people of these countries (well for Iraq it might be already too late). First they'll be shooting themselves over oil for X number of years. After they get tired of that (being quite below their starting point) they will probably have installed some much more despotic governments (remote-controlled by Washington or not) than their current ones. In other words the only thing worse than a despotic and corrupted government are 3 or 4 despotic and corrupted governments.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on February 6, 2006 - 4:01pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
LevinK,

People make decisions that are not economically based. The two people, Czechs and Slovaks, wanted a country apart and they had a "history" going back to World War I. Certainly they were on opposite sides in World War II when one was occupied and the other a supportive puppet. I agree that they have had problems since, but for the most part they are doing O.K. and now belong to the EU.

I agree splitting Iran (and others) would cause chaos and impact the oil price/supply. But I wonder if we are simply puitting it off? It is not like there has not been strife there in the region that has little to do with the USA. The best time to do it would be at the end of some successful major watershed on the world stage. Maybe the end of a big war, or the day the USA declares it is not importing any oil except from North America?

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
muhandis on February 6, 2006 - 1:25am Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
Gee, and on the same logic the balkanisation of the USA would be good too, North and South, or East and West. Just think what this might do to improve world peace! Yeh, sure...

If balkanisation is promotion of homogeneous societies, it is great way to create intolerant societies.  I can't agree it is a good thing.  I know too many people from the former Yugoslavia, and too many ruined lives.

I see balkanisation as cultural ignorance and intolerance.  

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.
Jack Greene on February 6, 2006 - 4:18pm Permalink | Subthread | Parent | Comments top
muhandis,

Balkanisation is, as you say, "cultural ignorance and intolerance". Your right.
But the older I get, the harder it is for me say that this person or that person should do this or that. The operative word there is should.

I think they should do what they want to, and nationalism is still a strong drive, mixed with that region's tribalism. It is hard for me to see how anyone (living in California) could object to blacks or latinos or whites together as friends and relatives, but they have a hard time in much of the Middle East to get along with the family in the next valley over who spells their name differently. I agree they are not smart thinking this way but "live and let live".

Also, what we are looking at are really small nations, and what is the practical result? The Basques and the Spanish have been fighting for going on 3 decades and with roots going much further back. And the Basques are not even Spanish by decent, but belong to the oldest race in Europe.

I guess when in doubt I come down on the side of freedom of choice.

0
Comments can no longer be added to this story.