April 30, 2007
History provides only lessons about how we could have dealt with Pol Pot, Hitler, etc. The twentieth century does not provide useful answers to the landmine dillema. It is neither.
American presence in the ME is a time bomb, America and Israel believes their desires will never be honoured and that is because of a continual state of war in the ME.
Saddam removal by America was an expensive military mistake – may have been the right thing to do on morale grounds – but it was not. Saddam was the leader of an artificial nation. Now that nation is trying to find its feet, but there are too many landmines under them, and the American army restricting the actions of warriors/terrorists to kill their enemy and thus resolve the issue.
If America withdraws, within 15 years, Iraq will become aligned with Iran. The Baathists stopped that for the minority Sunni popularion, but introduce democracy and the majority gets power. And that is Shiite.
The real strategic error committed by Bush was invading Iraq. America was already running a 10 year war of attrition, it was cruel and generated a crop of those willing to give their lives to save their world.
The war is making matters worse. How about building universities and offering the new generation of Iraqi leaders (who will take power in 10 years from now) an alternative? The foot will have to stay on the landmine until the landmine is defused or America risks being lured into committing more war crimes.
April 27, 2007
April 24, 2007
April 23, 2007
Freedom is threatened by the barcoding of babies?
Character assasination has taken on a whole new meaning as the “war on terror” progresses. The Dept of Homeland Security has a massive budget for spying upon the activities of potential terrorist threats. That is a reaction to the events of 9/11 and many have conjectured or argued a stance that the Governemnt used or even created 9/11 as a justification for control of the population with monosyallbic concepts and easily digested sound bites.
More civilians have died in the crossfire in this “war on terror” (if you include the events in Iraq since the US invasion) than the war sought to protect from the acts of terrorists. It is hard to accept that the War in Iraq is the same as the war launched to prevent Al Qaeda from establishing, it can be argued that the US invading Iraq was the best thing that could have happened for Al Qaeda.
The war on terror has flipped the tables on the US economy and in conjuction with cynical tax cuts made the poor of America (90%) utterly dependent upon the whim of a cartel of billionaires that rely upon growth in public consumption to continue being powerful. The US has blundered into a new form of slavery. The US now have a war effort in play, so a percentage of your grandchildrens’ income is going to be paying the bill. This is a reduction in the freedom of Americans since Bush came to power.
The first signs of a totalitarian state was the questionable election results that saw the Republicans only begin to enact their agenda after the public were well hypnotised by 9/11. Before 9/11 it was evident that new thinking had pushed aside pursuit of Al Qaeda started under Clinton.
The imprisonment of journalists and academics is the next stage of a new McCarthism. It seems that it now happening and I wonder if the voices of all those Homeland Security agents who are not finding terrorists around every street corner are in fact writing propaganda to “flush out” terrorists? Or, indeed, if it is the activity of “the enemy” – whomever it may be.
It relies upon uncalled for judgement of individuals when looking at Wikipedia articles. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia that almost invites slander but is regulated by its own active editing “community”. But they can not keep up with concerted efforts to commit acts of libel by “concerned citizens” who remain anonymous to the public eye.
Free speech is one thing. Being able to endanger the lives of others is something else.
April 17, 2007
They spend billions on “homeland security” and the University notifies students of an emergency by Email?
April 12, 2007
Arnold is right to say that the concerns about the environment are at the political centre and not the extreme left.
In New Zealand, the right wing National party has made more green overtures than the left wing Labour government. In fact, it is hard to say which party is more left wing these days. But ecology remains off to the Left spectrum because the Green party is seen as a party of luddites.
Actually the Green party is with the frontiers of science. No other political party has so linked its destiny with environmental concerns. For an Republican on the cover of Newsweek to claim the environment is the political middle ground seems ingenuous except that Mr Schwarzenegger is acting on the policy front and making California more environmentally conscious than before. If he can get that group of gas guzzling ego maniacs to zeroise their environmental footprint it will have an impact on climate change.
April 11, 2007
The world is beset by the greed and controlling desires of a few individuals who think that can out to apportion wealth in a way they see fit. Their old school class of agreements and bankers secrets became less relevant in a world where billionaires appear in increasing numbers and wealth is no longer an exclusive privilege of the “major powers” but other emerging powers appear flexing new found muscle to show their credentials for the privilege club. The obvious candidate is Iran – huge resources and a large civilization, oil is not the only product of Persian fame. President Ahmadinejad is attempting to curry favour with the West world while celebrating Holocaust denial. Those who could sympathise with a progressive Iran trust it not that much less than America. Such ideas appear to inflame the Right. Being unable to contemplate alternatives gives one a very fixed view of the future. Slavery is the sublimination of a person’s will to that of another. Both sides view the other as wrong and heretical. The answer to the Shia Sunni conflict is to stop the killing. This is best achieved via security and education, rather than bombs and hunting down young men.
April 5, 2007
The march at Majaf instigated by the Sadrist Shiite majority demonstrated against the foreign forces occupying Iraq. The political capital enjoyed by Bush and Blair is evaporating rapidly. The naked ambition to control the world’s oil supply appears the apparent goal in seeking to control outcomes in the Middle East. It is a rational strategy of the US Government as controlled by the remanants of the all bases covered Republican Senate, House and Presidential dominance of recent times – with only the office of President left to argue for the war. It is the voice that counts, the one voice in the wilderness of “who are you kidding” disbelief. Dragging the West into this unsavourary and premature war has recreated divisions on our own soil. The Bush Black/White doctrine does not allow hesitation but it is exactly that, hesistation, that has saved the world from Nuclear madness, on more than one occasion.
April 1, 2007
Bush created a budget balancing act based on increased spending, mainly military, of three trillion dollars. A trillion is 1000 billions, using the American system of dealing with numbers that are simply too big. 1,000,000 is our familiar million. 1,000,000,000 (one billion) is becoming a more commonplace concept of the 21st Century – and already we are talking in “trillions” (one of which looks like this: 1,000,000,000,000).
The 3,000,000,000,000 or so America spent on its friutless effort in Iraq has probably been borrowed from Saudi princes who probably are forced to indirectly fund the food chain that disposses far too many and creates al Qaeda. Perhaps that is the underlying rationale behind the Bush invasion. It was not Daddy’s record, but a deal we are not allowed to know about.
The Saudi royal family and its grip on power is funded by the centering of profit from oil extraction from the largest oil fields in the world through just a few hands who then appear to me to pitch America against their own enemies – the Shiite revolution that would render their power obsolete.
America stepped into a breach that appears to be more chaotic for the intervention. It has stepped into the breach of a war brewing on both sides of it. It needs to shore up Sunni support against its new spotlight of threat: Iran.
Whom is fooling whom?
American intervention is an effort to prolong the status quo, history tells us unfathomable power in too few hands is not a stable form of Government. It has resulted in revolution elsewhere, America and France are fine examples of a Republican success that followed revolutions.