The very fact that this has been the approach to these sorts of conflicts puts the lie to the deluded multiculturalist utopia.

["Balkanisation" is a poor term, but (wrapped in more honeyed words) I agree its the best solution. The "multiculturalist utopia" works (vide the US, or the UK) but not with the degree of distrust and hatred and death prevalent in the region at the moment and in the past. This too is a regrettable feedback affair: the Kurds would like their own country, naturally enough, and so the Turks distrust them, and suppress their language, which only makes the Kurds want a country even more, and so on round the cycle; and the same for others.

In this case, its obvious that their should be a Kurd country, spanning bits of Turkey, Iraq, Syria etc. The only reason there isn't one is that we (the West, probably mostly the UK) f*ck*d it all up when we left; and/or boundaries didn't mean quite the same thing in those days. Everyone (including Turkey and Iraq and Syria) would be much happier of their was a Kurd country; but the leaders and the public are too dumb to realise it -W]

Ah, but that’s where I think you’re wrong (or at least ambiguous and confusing to anyone reading from the world of economics). We don’t need to “invent a new discipline of economics” AFAIK. We need to improve economics, yes, but not in revolutionary ways – for the basic theory. We need to use economics differently.

No, we need to ditch the current dominant (neoclassical) theory and replace it with something that is rooted in biophysical realities and doesn’t have perpetual growth as the engine that doesn’t have a gear for reverse or running stationary.

Neoclassical economics isn’t all of economics, although it might seem that way after so many decades of domination, a whole culture that has evolved out of it, and economics faculties brainwashing willing students all over the world.

I’ve been reading some stuff about the history of economics lately, and am beginning to become aware just how much the brilliant work of people like Smith and Ricardo has been raped and distorted to justify all of the immoral aspects of globalisation and overconsumption.

It’s insane. Truly insane.

[Well, I'm baffled. You get close to the right answer at the end, but somehow don't see the contradiction to your start. Like I say: econ theory is fine. Your complaint is just the overemphasis on one branch. As to the "perpetual growth" "problem" - well, its a good model for the past. If you want to propose a different model for the future, you'll need to do so in detail, having first actually understood econ theory (I keep saying that to mt; I suppose I should admit that *I* don't understand econ theory) -W]

Some comments on that? Sounds quite worrying to me

Well, I think this video must be the kind of thing starship pilots do, when born before their time.

Anyway, establish a large safe haven on the Turkish border and start organizing a non-insane Free Syrian government to actually run things in the safe haven. That’ll help.

Also support an Alawite opposition movement ASAP that can run the Alawite parts of the county post-Assad and reduce massacres.