whoa whoa whoa. one of the chief aims of Islamists is to undermine the nation-state concept in principle and the stability of a number of nation states in particular, namely Pakistan, Lebanon, Israel, Jordon, ... They labor under the belief that Islam as a political order is hindered by the success of these nations, as indeed it is, and that their destruction hastens the arrival of a time in which the law of god, as they see it, will replace the law of man.

Let us NOT, then, rush to obliterate the national sovereignty of states we don't like, lest we weaken the legal standing of those we do.

Israel struggled, during that war, precisely because of this issue. Lebanese national sovereignty may be a doom proposition, but it matters that Israel is not on the side of dooming it and that it handicapped itself in the war to help preserve it.

Likewise here, if you want un-uniformed shotgun brigades to roam the streets of Pakistan with the tacit sanction of the civilized world, you are in effect inviting the same outcome for Mexico, which has currently lost control of much of its own territory, and for Los Angeles, which lacks effective control in some of its territories.

It's basically opening the door to the very chaos that AQ wishes to inaugurate.

They have good reason to seek the end of the nation-state system. We do not.

Let us NOT, then, rush to obliterate the national sovereignty of states we don't like, lest we weaken the legal standing of those we do

When the UN invited Yassar Arafat to make his Gun and Olive branch speech, they declared their rush to obliterate the national sovereignty of states they did not like. When the UN uses 'human rights' issues to defend the rights of terrorists and terrorist-led states, they declare their rush to obliterate nation-state sovereignty. I'm proposing that we fight back for a change.

A nation-state is not a valid state if it can't protect its own borders. When Pakistan allowed terrorist groups like Lashkar-e-Taiba, the Taliban and al Qaeda to establish states-within-their state, they effectively declared their sovereignty null and void. If India continues to allow this null and void state to send terrorists over the border to murder their citizens, they are weakening their own stability.

If they're going to handicap themselves and allow their stability and their citizens to be mangled, tortured and killed in a misguided attempt to defend a misunderstood concept of nation state, they will not survive.

The American nation-state was created by un-uniformed shotgun brigades. Modern democracies rely on the right of individuals to protect their own rights and to defend their own selves. This right is established in our constitution. We've survived because of this, not despite it.

Pakistan, like many failed Islamist nation states, uses proxies like Lashkar-e-Taiba to fight its wars. The goal of these proxies is to intimidate potential uprisings by oppressed groups, like the Baluchis. The other goal is to intimidate proseperous and powerful neighbors, like India. Their other goals are to grab as much money, power and goodies as they can get. It's not a coincidence that local mobs local governments and local terrorists work together. Their philosophy is basically the same, but the terrorists have read more Marx.

Anyway, their goal is not to destroy nation-states. They may say that's their goal, but, you know, we shouldn't be surprised that child-murderers and genocidaires lie. Watch what they do, not what they say.

Our goal should be to destroy and dismantle these proxies as quickly and efficiently as we can. We should fight smarter, not harder. Deliberately handicapping ourselves is unspeakably wrong.

India does not need to construct a casus belli, it came pre-constructed with the tacit complicity of Pakistan. I don't believe for a minute that India wants a war but for it's own security and in the name of justice, it has every right to demand action on the part of Pakistan and to hold out war as an option for achieving it. For Pakistan to avoid having the pressure build under this situation, it needs to act to exercise its obligation of sovereignty.

You're making the case that the system doesn't work and that it allows states like Pakistan and Iran to foster terrorists with little consequence.

Ok. That's plainly true. But you fall into some dangerous territory.

"A nation-state is not a valid state if it can't protect its own borders."

With this as a rationale, one might argue that the assault on Israel in 1948 was an appropriate test of the state's viability, and that if that assault had succeeded it would have proved the illegitimacy of the Israeli state. I don't think that's what you want.

The UN is flawed, the whole system is flawed. Let's grant all of that. But if you're going to join the chorus calling for the whole regime to die, I think you'd better have some idea what to replace it with, and some idea how to implement that idea, and so on. Otherwise it's over the falls hand in hand with AQ, and then hope we master chaos better than they do.

Or maybe it's coming to that anyway.

With this as a rationale, one might argue that the assault on Israel in 1948 was an appropriate test of the state's viability, and that if that assault had succeeded it would have proved the illegitimacy of the Israeli state. I don't think that's what you want.

My opinion about the assault on Israel, or Israel's legitimacy, is irrelevant. If Israel hadn't been able to fight for its right to exist, it would not exist now. With or without the UN.

The UN does not believe that Hezbollah should be armed, and it doesn't believe that Hezbollah should exist as a militia within a state. Very few nation-states support Hezbollah's right to bear arms and exist as a foreign-funded army. But Hezbollah exists, they have weapons and they're bullying the rest of Lebanon because the UN, the Lebanese government and the Lebanese people do not want to fight with them.

Hamas rules Gaza, and they're not going to go away until someone kicks the crap out of them.There is no worldwide 'regime' to preserve, there is no international league of gentlemanly nation-states. During the Cold War, there was some structure, and a few working alliances, like NATO, but without Soviets to fight that organization lacks a cause. There is no reason to cling to strategies and traditions that no longer apply to the world as it is.

Relying on traditions and outmoded, known-to-be-ineffective ideas destroyed traditional monarchies in Europe. By deliberately handicapping ourselves in an effort to preserve what (kind of) was, we're fighting like Redcoats. We know better.

> Relying on traditions and outmoded,
> known-to-be-ineffective ideas
> destroyed traditional monarchies in Europe.

come on. Monarchies died because their social structures couldn't tolerate a growing middle and business class.

We're having an economic convulsion now that might be a consequence of social changes of the same magnitude. But even if that's so it's not obvious what they lead to or that the political upheaval will be as total.

btw, speaking of upheaval, Ford did reach $1. http://www.ezraschartbooks.com/stockchart.php?page=stockchart&ticker=f&startdate=2008-07-15&timeframe=daily&submit=redraw&apoint=2008-07-17&anchorplacement=low&bpoint=2008-09-19&cpoint=2008-11-20&fpoint=2008-11-20&ecbtrend=on&bbands=on

btw, speaking of upheaval, Ford did reach $1

You were right about that! It's not clear what kind of upheaval will occur after these economic convulsions. I did expect Ford stock would go down, but I didn't expect oil and gold to fall as far as they have, nor did I expect the dollar to gain so much on the Euro.

It's not clear which dinosaurs will fall, but it's probably a good idea to focus instead on the smaller, more clever beasts that will replace them, like the manufacturing sector you were talking about.

Of course, I'm talking about business, not politics. Nearly every political system seems to be lumbering and dinosaur-ish these days.

Your instincts are good. As non-state actors go, business stands the best chance of providing a global framework of law and of establishing universal values to underpin that law. The next version of the UN might be a group of wikis hosted by large corporations under a general framework of transparency where the basic deal with populations is "we're watching you. you're watching us".

I did expect commodities to crap out. The commodity bubble was sustained by the housing bubble via the CDOs. That is, the CDOs were used to collateralize the trading operations that were driving up a huge assortment of markets. Once the foundation weakened, everything had to be drawn down. The system was run so tight that even a slight change in availability of margin would have had big consequences, but there was more than a slight change.

My w.a.g. about the dollar is that people need dollars to buy US real estate. We seem poised to have a period of huge monetary inflation, so cash is doomed but dollar denominated real estate is safe. So people are buying dollars now in order to buy real estate. I think.

The next version of the UN might be a group of wikis hosted by large corporations under a general framework of transparency where the basic deal with populations is "we're watching you. you're watching us".

When I was in Silicon Valley, we assumed that a corporate-tech run future was right around the corner. Given that our Governor was dim bulb Grey Davis, we thought it would be a great improvement.

Of course, if this future does come about, it would be good to avoid a Rollerball-type dystopia...

We want peace in Karachi...
Thanks
Kamran
http://Karachi.tk