1 - 5
In response to:

The Natural Map of the Middle East

ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 08, 2012 8:23 PM
Actually it was the south the began hostilities by firing on Ft Sumpter. Had they shown some restraint, they could have given themselves time to organize a government and an army that would have preserved their independence. Counterfactuals aside, the issue was slavery not national identity. Southerners consider themselves Americans, not Confederates. This is not the case in many countries where citizens of country idenify with the ethnicity (a nation), not their country. Despite being under British rule for centuries, the Catholics in Ireland saw themselves as Irish, not British. That is the difference between a natual boundary and a political boundary. Actually, Mr Outsider, you proved my point.
In response to:

The Natural Map of the Middle East

ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 11:01 PM
Consider the example of Yugoslavia, a country held together by the oppresive Tito regime. Once it broke up in a series on vicious wars, it organized itself into a series of nations along its natural boundries. Some became cruise ship destinations within a few years of the fighting dying down. Only Bosnia, held together by a NATO presence, is inherently unstable. Al Qaeda's dream of a multinational caliphate is suceptable to the same pressures. The Suni Arabs are no more capable of uniting as one nation than the Protestant Europeans three centuries ago.
In response to:

The Natural Map of the Middle East

ISC-AH Wrote: Aug 07, 2012 10:43 PM
The elephant in the room. The ugly truth is that most countries in the middle east and africa really don't exist, except in the mind of the despotic ruling class. However, rather than fear the disintegration we need to welcome it. These countries are inherently instable as long as the are held together. Is Libya ungovernable. but would Tripolitania, Cyrenaica (Barca) and Fezzan be more stable in the long run? Would Iraq be more stable if it separated into its Sunni, Shia and Kurdish Nations? In the long run, the break up of these countries is not a threat to either Israel or the United States, since the hatred of both in nutured in a effort to unit disparate peoples. However, in the short run it will be a rough ride.
Following World War I there had been concern among some in Germany that the war had decimated the ranks of the qualified and strong while weak, unqualified, and inferior people had been spared. Many felt that scant resources should not be wasted on the sick and suffering. The philosophy of the unimportance of the individual in favor of the people (das Volk) led to the belief that individuals who had become “worthless, defective parts” had to be “sacrificed or discarded.” Marc S. Micozzi M.D. http://www.thefreemanonline.org/columns/national-health-care-medicine-in-germany-1918-1945/
In response to:

Alternative Health Care Reforms

ISC-AH Wrote: Jun 23, 2012 8:09 PM
Two things need to happen to the healthcare debate. First we need to change the question to what is the best means to ensure individuals can afford healthcare (the real issue) from how best to make sure everyone has health insurance (the problem being "solved" by Obamacare. The second is to recognize that healthcare is neither a right nor a privilege, but a responsibility. Once the issue has been framed, there are multiple solutions; ranging from healthcare clubs, to healthcare 401Ks savings plans to purchased annuities managed by the individual. We need to move away from employer based healthcare plans to individually managed plans and eliminate one of the parties that complicate the transaction and increase costs.
1 - 5