FYI: The beginning of this may be a tad controversial.
I will say that I am in no way defending the actions of Major Hasan or his dispicable act of mass murder...but a member of my family brought up the title of a controversial presentation that Major Hasan gave to his classmates-"Why The War on Terror is a War on Islam."(The NYT confirmed this) ...and I must admit that without having seen this presentation to gauge it's accuracy, I agree.
Upon reading a book by William R. Polk entitled "Violent Politics: A History of Insurgency, Terrorism, and Guerrilla War, from the American Revolution to Iraq" I've realize what a long and successful history acts of terrorism and guerrilla warfare have been used to level the playing-field against a stronger entity.
The recent War on Terror however, had a very narrow line of sight: 1. The group must be Islamic. 2. The group must use terrorism as a tactic.
If this were truly a War on Terror, and not just targeting an Islamic flavor, then it would also include: The Basque separatists in Spain, Christian insurgents in East Timor, (until recently->) Hindu-Marxist Tamil Tigers in Sri Lanka, Action Directe in France, Aum Shinrikyo(religious zealots) in Japan, Babbar Khalsa(Sikh separtists) in India, etc. http://www.worldstatesmen.org/Terrorist.html
Do not think that this goes unnoticed by the Muslim world as well: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/brmiddleeastnafricara/361.php?lb=brme&pnt=361&nid=&id=
"8 in 10 countries believes that the US seeks to weaken and divide the Islamic world."
Not only did we forget to mention some terrorist groups, but we made the stupid mistake of lumping all Islamic terrorist groups together.
Groups Hamas in Gaza, Hezbollah in Lebanon, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, most of Taliban(in Afghanistan at least- Pakistani Taliban is more of a global org.) cannot be lumped in with al Qaeda.
The reason for this is b/c those first couple of groups are totally and strictly nationalist groups with real grievances and tangible aims. They want to establish Shariah Law within their borders(assuming they have obvious borders...not so much with Hamas). Their aims are really no different than other religious nationalist groups like evangelicals in the US, Zionists in Israel, or PJP party in India. Their method however, is a violent one. The thing is, we can address their issues and actually deal with them.
al Qaeda however is a transnationalist group that wants to get rid of all nations and establish a global caliphate. They use the plight of the Palestinians and other things as rallying points but really, they don't give a shit about the Palestinians trying to form a nation b/c al Qaeda itself is anti-nationalistic. They have been refered to as Islamofascist but as my Italian heritage has taught me, Fascism is a uber-nationalist philosophy...and al Qaeda is anything but nationalist.
It is important then, to take those rallying points away from al Qaeda. We must solve the Israeli/Palestinian issue, we must stop supporting dictators in the Middle East, we must stop killing civillians and starting BS wars, etc. We will never succeed in killing every al Qaeda operative, but we can make their movement obsolete. As both Sun Tzu and the band Green Day put it: "Know Your Enemy."
Sunday, November 15, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Now That's the pot calling the kettle black
Being the cynical pessimist that I am, it is a very rare occasion that someone is able to sink so low that I am left completely flabbergasted.
This week however, I was made aware of a recent quote by the big Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens. Pickens is quoted as stating that "We're entitled to it"-with regards to Iraqi oil contracts that US energy companies should recieve as compensation for the loss of American troops in Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Pickens is unaware of what a ginormously, Brobdignagian(I apologize for my Gulliver's Travels reference) mistake the invasion of Iraq was and continues to still be...he IS a Texan after-all. For a look at the Iraqi body count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We must of course also mourn the senseless loss of American lives http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
but it is the Iraqi people who continue to suffer massive loss of life. Just in one day(Oct. 25) more than 155 people, including 30 children, were killed in Baghdad's "Green Zone". And This is supposed to be the most heavily protected and secure area??
Furthermore, Pickens had just recently been parading around the country trying to sell his "Picken's Plan" http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ telling us how "America is addicted to foreign oil. It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security."
To me, Pickens is like the fat lady shamefully admitting that Americans are fat and should diet... while greedily wolfing down the entire pan of brownies. How about we just let that blood-money be and get to building those fancy windmills??
This week however, I was made aware of a recent quote by the big Texas oilman, T. Boone Pickens. Pickens is quoted as stating that "We're entitled to it"-with regards to Iraqi oil contracts that US energy companies should recieve as compensation for the loss of American troops in Iraq.
Perhaps Mr. Pickens is unaware of what a ginormously, Brobdignagian(I apologize for my Gulliver's Travels reference) mistake the invasion of Iraq was and continues to still be...he IS a Texan after-all. For a look at the Iraqi body count: http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
We must of course also mourn the senseless loss of American lives http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/ops/iraq_casualties.htm
but it is the Iraqi people who continue to suffer massive loss of life. Just in one day(Oct. 25) more than 155 people, including 30 children, were killed in Baghdad's "Green Zone". And This is supposed to be the most heavily protected and secure area??
Furthermore, Pickens had just recently been parading around the country trying to sell his "Picken's Plan" http://www.pickensplan.com/theplan/ telling us how "America is addicted to foreign oil. It's an addiction that threatens our economy, our environment and our national security."
To me, Pickens is like the fat lady shamefully admitting that Americans are fat and should diet... while greedily wolfing down the entire pan of brownies. How about we just let that blood-money be and get to building those fancy windmills??
Friday, October 9, 2009
My own two cents on the situation in Afghanistan
I’ve wanted to write something on this for some time but it’s such a huge and very complicated issue that I still have no idea how to make it more concise…but I’ll give it a shot.
I honestly think that there is no ideal solution to the war in Afghanistan. If we pull out entirely as some have called for, we continue in the tradition of the British and Russian empires. The Afghans learned from them that through guerrilla warfare, seemingly David v. Goliath situations against foreign powers can be made too costly to sustain and the foreigners would eventually leave. If we cut and run now, we will also give terrorist organizations the propaganda tool to recruit many more people and al Qaeda will come back to Afghanistan.
Gen McCrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops and has said, “The situation is serious but winnable with the right strategy and additional resources.” I don’t think it is so cut and dry that if we just had more troops we could better “take and hold” areas and prevent them from becoming “Talibanized.” The people in Afghanistan do not want us there-they do not necessarily want the Taliban back in power, but they don’t see Karzai’s govt. as legit and certainly do not want a foreign power interfering with their daily lives. The people of Afghanistan are intensely loyal to their little clans and basically are just a collection of nation-states. They are not united so much by an ideology or religion but by their mistrust of foreigners. The insurgency movement uses this more than anything to gather popular support, or at least acquiescence to their cause by creating the age-old “Us v. Them” mentality.
We got into this whole thing because the Afghans refused to turn over Osama bin Ladin and other al Qaeda operatives. It was not because they supported the ideology of al Qaeda(really, the Taliban cares not for the Islamization of the world and are quite content to just focus on keeping Shariah in their own areas) but because of a societal code of honor. Due to the fact that Afghanistan has always been a route to somewhere else (as opposed to an actual destination), the concept of “Melmastia” came to be. “Melmastia” is the notion that refugees or travelers would receive both hospitality and protection as guests in the Afghan village. This practice goes waaay back to ancient times, and this willingness to be hospitable, though the hosts may live in the worst state of poverty, really establishes a sense of personal worth and pride within the village. We offered the Afghans over 25 million dollars for bin Ladin…and then refused. This was not so much a hostile act of war, but a strong and silent showing of moral fiber in accordance to their own unique culture.
So, we screwed that up, what do we do now? Like I stated in a previous post on the AfPak nonsense, I would like to see us open up talks with the Taliban. They are oppressive but also fair and outlawed the drug-trade that has so corrupted Karzai’s government. At least we know what to expect with them and perhaps if given some legitimacy while being monitored they will become more moderate. We should also use Pakistan’s version of the CIA, the ISI, to hunt down and “off” al Qaeda leaders. The ISI likes to play political games and use their intelligence as leverage with the US, Taliban, al Qaeda, and India->as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks there. We need to appeal to the ISI and make sure they’re only batting for our team; we can do this monetarily and through threats of military action in order to use them to get to al Qaeda. Lets also Not forget about Iran. They also have something to fear from Sunni militancy. None of this will be easy, but I think that Obama has the wisdom to examine all of his options and take into account the many variables in order to make a responsible decision.
I honestly think that there is no ideal solution to the war in Afghanistan. If we pull out entirely as some have called for, we continue in the tradition of the British and Russian empires. The Afghans learned from them that through guerrilla warfare, seemingly David v. Goliath situations against foreign powers can be made too costly to sustain and the foreigners would eventually leave. If we cut and run now, we will also give terrorist organizations the propaganda tool to recruit many more people and al Qaeda will come back to Afghanistan.
Gen McCrystal has asked for 40,000 more troops and has said, “The situation is serious but winnable with the right strategy and additional resources.” I don’t think it is so cut and dry that if we just had more troops we could better “take and hold” areas and prevent them from becoming “Talibanized.” The people in Afghanistan do not want us there-they do not necessarily want the Taliban back in power, but they don’t see Karzai’s govt. as legit and certainly do not want a foreign power interfering with their daily lives. The people of Afghanistan are intensely loyal to their little clans and basically are just a collection of nation-states. They are not united so much by an ideology or religion but by their mistrust of foreigners. The insurgency movement uses this more than anything to gather popular support, or at least acquiescence to their cause by creating the age-old “Us v. Them” mentality.
We got into this whole thing because the Afghans refused to turn over Osama bin Ladin and other al Qaeda operatives. It was not because they supported the ideology of al Qaeda(really, the Taliban cares not for the Islamization of the world and are quite content to just focus on keeping Shariah in their own areas) but because of a societal code of honor. Due to the fact that Afghanistan has always been a route to somewhere else (as opposed to an actual destination), the concept of “Melmastia” came to be. “Melmastia” is the notion that refugees or travelers would receive both hospitality and protection as guests in the Afghan village. This practice goes waaay back to ancient times, and this willingness to be hospitable, though the hosts may live in the worst state of poverty, really establishes a sense of personal worth and pride within the village. We offered the Afghans over 25 million dollars for bin Ladin…and then refused. This was not so much a hostile act of war, but a strong and silent showing of moral fiber in accordance to their own unique culture.
So, we screwed that up, what do we do now? Like I stated in a previous post on the AfPak nonsense, I would like to see us open up talks with the Taliban. They are oppressive but also fair and outlawed the drug-trade that has so corrupted Karzai’s government. At least we know what to expect with them and perhaps if given some legitimacy while being monitored they will become more moderate. We should also use Pakistan’s version of the CIA, the ISI, to hunt down and “off” al Qaeda leaders. The ISI likes to play political games and use their intelligence as leverage with the US, Taliban, al Qaeda, and India->as we’ve seen with terrorist attacks there. We need to appeal to the ISI and make sure they’re only batting for our team; we can do this monetarily and through threats of military action in order to use them to get to al Qaeda. Lets also Not forget about Iran. They also have something to fear from Sunni militancy. None of this will be easy, but I think that Obama has the wisdom to examine all of his options and take into account the many variables in order to make a responsible decision.
Friday, September 4, 2009
Private contractors once again destroy the US image abroad
Xe(formerly known as Blackwater-perhaps you've heard of them?), Triple Canopy, DynCorp, and ArmorGroup are all private contractor groups used in Iraq and/or Afghanistan.They've also virtually become household names...and usually for pretty nefarious reasons. Another reason their names have become so mainstream is because the magnity of their current usage is without precedent. According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) report: as of March, contractors made up 57 percent of the Pentagon's Afghanistan personnel->it is important to note that not all of these are actually armed soldiers and they include construction workers, cooks, etc.
This is a large percent, but given the recent expansion of military actions and facilities in Afghanistan, more boots on the ground is imperative. In all honesty, Afghanistan is a very tricky situation. It is a large country and in the past as soon as we've moved out of an area, the Taliban comes right back and harshly punishes those who cooperated with us. People are afraid. It becomes necessary then to hold positions- this simply requires more troops.
The problem comes however when these private security contractors undermine the greater mission by abusing and even killing the local people(as Blackwater did in Iraq). The Defense Department had been under a lot of scrutiny recently but it has only been in the last few days that the State Department has been under the same fire: The US embassy in Afghanistan says it has fired eight security guards who were photographed taking part in lewd acts during alcohol-fuelled parties at their living quarters in Kabul after the Project on Government Oversight group sent a letter to the US secretary of state alleging that guards had held abusive rituals.
Not only were these men peeing on each other or taking shots(alcohol is supposedly not even allowed to any embassy employee while in Afghanistan) and eating chips out of each other's asses, they were apparently also abusing Afghan nationals. How does this make us look to the people of a conservative Muslim country like Afghanistan-let alone the Muslim world or global community at large?? Is this what we are paying ArmorGroup $189 million over the next few years to do?
The State Department will also soon re-award its contract of $1.2 billion to Xe(Blackwater)- which is presently the only security company hired by The State Dept. to protect diplomats in Afghanistan. I have to applaud the State Dept. for cracking down on this behavior, but using these "soldiers for hire" requires constant vigilance as private contractors don't need to necessarily adhere to such niceties as the laws of war. If we are going to continue to outsource our military engagements to these groups, then we must not just write checks and assume all will be taken care of. In contracting these groups, we assume responsibility for their actions as they are considered by the people of the "host" country to be a reflection of us. I give Props to Project on Government Oversight for living up to their watch-dog reputation. As for the embassy employees, they should be less focused on hazing each other and more focused on actually securing the compound. According to the NY Times, last month the embassy was hit with "at least eight rockets" as well as a suicide bomber attack.
This is a large percent, but given the recent expansion of military actions and facilities in Afghanistan, more boots on the ground is imperative. In all honesty, Afghanistan is a very tricky situation. It is a large country and in the past as soon as we've moved out of an area, the Taliban comes right back and harshly punishes those who cooperated with us. People are afraid. It becomes necessary then to hold positions- this simply requires more troops.
The problem comes however when these private security contractors undermine the greater mission by abusing and even killing the local people(as Blackwater did in Iraq). The Defense Department had been under a lot of scrutiny recently but it has only been in the last few days that the State Department has been under the same fire: The US embassy in Afghanistan says it has fired eight security guards who were photographed taking part in lewd acts during alcohol-fuelled parties at their living quarters in Kabul after the Project on Government Oversight group sent a letter to the US secretary of state alleging that guards had held abusive rituals.
Not only were these men peeing on each other or taking shots(alcohol is supposedly not even allowed to any embassy employee while in Afghanistan) and eating chips out of each other's asses, they were apparently also abusing Afghan nationals. How does this make us look to the people of a conservative Muslim country like Afghanistan-let alone the Muslim world or global community at large?? Is this what we are paying ArmorGroup $189 million over the next few years to do?
The State Department will also soon re-award its contract of $1.2 billion to Xe(Blackwater)- which is presently the only security company hired by The State Dept. to protect diplomats in Afghanistan. I have to applaud the State Dept. for cracking down on this behavior, but using these "soldiers for hire" requires constant vigilance as private contractors don't need to necessarily adhere to such niceties as the laws of war. If we are going to continue to outsource our military engagements to these groups, then we must not just write checks and assume all will be taken care of. In contracting these groups, we assume responsibility for their actions as they are considered by the people of the "host" country to be a reflection of us. I give Props to Project on Government Oversight for living up to their watch-dog reputation. As for the embassy employees, they should be less focused on hazing each other and more focused on actually securing the compound. According to the NY Times, last month the embassy was hit with "at least eight rockets" as well as a suicide bomber attack.
Wednesday, August 5, 2009
The issue of Democracy in the Middle East
In "Islamism and Democracy" Joshua Muravchik is quoted as saying, "The broader question is whether Shari'ah is in any sense compatible with democracy. Shari'ah, we are told, is God's law, and if Shari'ah is advanced as a political program, then it means that the state should rest on the sovereignty of God. But the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people. The two cannot easily be reconciled...."
He also makes mention of instances in which Islamists have taken power ie. Islamic Republic in Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and "have been anything but democratic."
To address the first question of whether or not Islamic law can be compatable with democracy, we need only look at similar instances in history. It was not too long ago that democracy in Catholic countries seemed a "pipe-dream." Many believed, as it seemed to be the case, that democracy was compatible only with Protestantism(brings to mind the question of Kennedy's allegiance). This seemed to make sense as Catholicism encourages an obedience to the Church's hierarchy that claim to be direct intercessors of God's divine law... and as Mr. Muravchik stated above, "the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people." The Protestant democracies of Europe and the US historically also made a sharp contrast to the dictatorships of Catholic Central and South America(and the shaky Italian democracy). FAST FORWARD to today-> According to the "Journal of Democracy"- over 90% of predominantly Catholic countries are democracies.
Similar issues of allegiance to religious v. democratic practices were brought up in Hindu India, and Confucian Taiwan and S. Korea("East meets West" by Dan Bell)...so what's the "dealio" with the Middle East??
It is quite obvious that the people of the Middle East are fed up with their authoritative leaders->cough* cough* Iran. A 2005 Gallup International poll found that 78% of people in the M.E. considered democracy to be "the best form of government." The problem though is that historically the West has always supported these dictators as long as the oil kept flowin'->Operation Ajax in the '50s is a Perfect example of why the Muslim world is wary of us.
We also contradict ourselves when we demand democracy(Bush Doctrine) but then reject the winners, such as the case with Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections...or just as bad-> we look the other way when our allies forcefully crush democratically elected opposition groups within their own country as Mubarak did in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. That last instance encouraged Zawahiri to write a book entitled, "The Bitter Harvest: The Brotherhood in Sixty Years"-which basically made fun of and criticized The Brotherhood for trying to take part in elections and trust the US in the first place.
It is my belief that democracy can work in Muslim countries but instead of instantly rejecting the legitimacy of any group that may not be on especially friendly terms with the US, we should just sit back and watch to see what happens. It's been the case that more extreme groups have become more moderate within the perameters of the governmental system-> Fatah in Palestinian area is just one example(AKP in Turkey as well). I think that as long as we reject groups like Hamas and Hezbollah outright, we allow them to present themselves as a blemish-free alternative to the party(s) in power. Hamas was able to point out all the things that Fatah wasn't doing right and gain popularity. If we allow such groups to actually have a part in government, we open them up to showing their own flaws...and thus, fall from that lofty seat.
As for me, I certainly will be watching what continues to happen in Iran. Ahmadinejad was indeed sworn in today...but now he has to deal with a very fractured, divided, and angry Iran.
He also makes mention of instances in which Islamists have taken power ie. Islamic Republic in Iran, Hamas in Gaza, Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt, and "have been anything but democratic."
To address the first question of whether or not Islamic law can be compatable with democracy, we need only look at similar instances in history. It was not too long ago that democracy in Catholic countries seemed a "pipe-dream." Many believed, as it seemed to be the case, that democracy was compatible only with Protestantism(brings to mind the question of Kennedy's allegiance). This seemed to make sense as Catholicism encourages an obedience to the Church's hierarchy that claim to be direct intercessors of God's divine law... and as Mr. Muravchik stated above, "the essence of democracy is the sovereignty of the people." The Protestant democracies of Europe and the US historically also made a sharp contrast to the dictatorships of Catholic Central and South America(and the shaky Italian democracy). FAST FORWARD to today-> According to the "Journal of Democracy"- over 90% of predominantly Catholic countries are democracies.
Similar issues of allegiance to religious v. democratic practices were brought up in Hindu India, and Confucian Taiwan and S. Korea("East meets West" by Dan Bell)...so what's the "dealio" with the Middle East??
It is quite obvious that the people of the Middle East are fed up with their authoritative leaders->cough* cough* Iran. A 2005 Gallup International poll found that 78% of people in the M.E. considered democracy to be "the best form of government." The problem though is that historically the West has always supported these dictators as long as the oil kept flowin'->Operation Ajax in the '50s is a Perfect example of why the Muslim world is wary of us.
We also contradict ourselves when we demand democracy(Bush Doctrine) but then reject the winners, such as the case with Hamas' victory in the Palestinian elections...or just as bad-> we look the other way when our allies forcefully crush democratically elected opposition groups within their own country as Mubarak did in Egypt with the Muslim Brotherhood. That last instance encouraged Zawahiri to write a book entitled, "The Bitter Harvest: The Brotherhood in Sixty Years"-which basically made fun of and criticized The Brotherhood for trying to take part in elections and trust the US in the first place.
It is my belief that democracy can work in Muslim countries but instead of instantly rejecting the legitimacy of any group that may not be on especially friendly terms with the US, we should just sit back and watch to see what happens. It's been the case that more extreme groups have become more moderate within the perameters of the governmental system-> Fatah in Palestinian area is just one example(AKP in Turkey as well). I think that as long as we reject groups like Hamas and Hezbollah outright, we allow them to present themselves as a blemish-free alternative to the party(s) in power. Hamas was able to point out all the things that Fatah wasn't doing right and gain popularity. If we allow such groups to actually have a part in government, we open them up to showing their own flaws...and thus, fall from that lofty seat.
As for me, I certainly will be watching what continues to happen in Iran. Ahmadinejad was indeed sworn in today...but now he has to deal with a very fractured, divided, and angry Iran.
Wednesday, July 22, 2009
Take THAT Military Industrial Complex!! Finally, we're listening to Ike!!
I'm writing this in response to the Senate's vote to stop buying the F-22-which has been used in neither Iraq or Afghanistan, has become obsolete and is even dangerous as pilots can become trapped in it. To me, this is the first blow to the Military Industrial Complex in a very long time.
In Eisenhower's fair-well address, he warned of the Military Industrial Complex. It basically refers to the very close and shady dealings of the Military, the Contractors, and the Politicians.
Eugene Jarecki's Documentary entitled "Why We Fight"(Named after the Frank-Capra WWII propoganda movies) does a much better job at going into detail than I could but what happens is this:
Corporations compete with each other to sell their product to our government. They also flood our Congressional districts with money and jobs so that if the military no longer uses said product, people lose those jobs and money (B2 Bomber has a piece made in every state). Representatives are terrified of losing these contracts b/c it may cost them thousands of votes. Many government officials have either previously headed these companies or do so after office-a notable example is Cheney and Halliburton/KBR. He was Sec. of Defense, Afterward he ran the company(making quadruple what he did in public service), and then after becoming VP he (in my opinion) saw to it that we went to war and made sure Halliburton got the contracts.
It's all a money-making business and what I personally find the most scary is that these contractors who are basically making our foreign policy have Zero Accountability to the voters.
Check out this website: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm Please note that our military expenditures was $623 billion. The next closest was China with 65.0 billion . What is even more jaw-dropping is the total world expenditures(minus US) at $500 billion. Why the hell do we feel the need to spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world put together??
Basically I just want people to be aware and not glorify our militaristic nature. We do Not go into countries to bring freedom and democracy-we go in to loot, plunder, and protect our interestes as the global hegemon. Capitalism is defeating Democracy in this country and only an informed and vigilant citizenry can keep these two in balance. This last election was Huge in the amount of people who got involved and informed-we cannot let that zeal for the democratic process to once again be replaced with ignorance and apathy.
Other News: I finished Reza Aslan's book "How To Win A Cosmic War." I have to say hands-down that it was the best book i've read in years (quite the statement). It was extremely informative, engaging, and insightful. I would def highly recommend it.
In Eisenhower's fair-well address, he warned of the Military Industrial Complex. It basically refers to the very close and shady dealings of the Military, the Contractors, and the Politicians.
Eugene Jarecki's Documentary entitled "Why We Fight"(Named after the Frank-Capra WWII propoganda movies) does a much better job at going into detail than I could but what happens is this:
Corporations compete with each other to sell their product to our government. They also flood our Congressional districts with money and jobs so that if the military no longer uses said product, people lose those jobs and money (B2 Bomber has a piece made in every state). Representatives are terrified of losing these contracts b/c it may cost them thousands of votes. Many government officials have either previously headed these companies or do so after office-a notable example is Cheney and Halliburton/KBR. He was Sec. of Defense, Afterward he ran the company(making quadruple what he did in public service), and then after becoming VP he (in my opinion) saw to it that we went to war and made sure Halliburton got the contracts.
It's all a money-making business and what I personally find the most scary is that these contractors who are basically making our foreign policy have Zero Accountability to the voters.
Check out this website: http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/world/spending.htm Please note that our military expenditures was $623 billion. The next closest was China with 65.0 billion . What is even more jaw-dropping is the total world expenditures(minus US) at $500 billion. Why the hell do we feel the need to spend more on our military than the entire rest of the world put together??
Basically I just want people to be aware and not glorify our militaristic nature. We do Not go into countries to bring freedom and democracy-we go in to loot, plunder, and protect our interestes as the global hegemon. Capitalism is defeating Democracy in this country and only an informed and vigilant citizenry can keep these two in balance. This last election was Huge in the amount of people who got involved and informed-we cannot let that zeal for the democratic process to once again be replaced with ignorance and apathy.
Other News: I finished Reza Aslan's book "How To Win A Cosmic War." I have to say hands-down that it was the best book i've read in years (quite the statement). It was extremely informative, engaging, and insightful. I would def highly recommend it.
Friday, July 10, 2009
AFPAK is a bunch of BS
Ok, so Obama has been talking nonstop about this AfPak campaign. (***Thus begins my refering to these countries by their names throughout. To keep it simple, I wont switch between country, capitol, and leaders.***)
Being the pessimist that I am, I think we should abandon it while we still can -lest we pump even more money than the 8.7 billion we've already given Pakistan ...not to mention the troop increases to Afghanistan.(http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20090303.aspx)
The whole idea of AfPak is ridiculous in even it's wording. These countries are hardly BFFs. Afghanistan was not happy at the creation of Pakistan and was very vocally against their admission into the U.N. Due to the fact that Pakistan was(and still is) afraid of war with India, they've been kissing Afghani heiney and were actually a huge help with fighting the Soviets.
Problem is that Afghanistan has been really warming up to India-> If you know anything about the independence of India, the subsequent creation of Pakistan, and the ongoing land disputes between India and Pakistan, you can understand that Pakistan is having a "F* My Life" moment as of recently.
Afghanistan and India never really had any problems with each other and since India has a much better economy to speak of, they've been giving Afghanistan a ton of $$$ in aid. They even offered to help train the Afghan National Army. Of course, a very green and uneasy Pakistan sought to block all goods trying to make their way from India to Afghanistan and this trade route is still a point of contention.
My main point is that Pakistan really doesn't want to help Afghanistan at all. Pakistan supports the Taliban and does not allow coallition troops to chase them over the border into Pakistan. Perhaps Pakistan even wants Afghanistan to be a messy unstable country. If Afghanistan is unstable, Pakistan does not have to worry about being in the awkward position of being smushed between two strong buddies. My fear is that we are putting too much faith-and money-into this campaign. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are known for their government corruption and drug trade...good guys huh??
Recently there has been talk of senior Taliban leaders wanting to meet with US officials to start "talks." It is my opinion that though this could be a good thing, we should be very cautious. The Taliban can def. be worked with, but they need to reject Al-Qaeda(who cannot be negotiated with in my opinion) and agree to voice their opinions(right, wrong, or indifferent) through legal means. Their views of women are very bothersome to me, but even their opinions should be heard in the legislature while disallowing their violent and repressive actions against women and others.
Being the pessimist that I am, I think we should abandon it while we still can -lest we pump even more money than the 8.7 billion we've already given Pakistan ...not to mention the troop increases to Afghanistan.(http://www.strategypage.com/qnd/india/articles/20090303.aspx)
The whole idea of AfPak is ridiculous in even it's wording. These countries are hardly BFFs. Afghanistan was not happy at the creation of Pakistan and was very vocally against their admission into the U.N. Due to the fact that Pakistan was(and still is) afraid of war with India, they've been kissing Afghani heiney and were actually a huge help with fighting the Soviets.
Problem is that Afghanistan has been really warming up to India-> If you know anything about the independence of India, the subsequent creation of Pakistan, and the ongoing land disputes between India and Pakistan, you can understand that Pakistan is having a "F* My Life" moment as of recently.
Afghanistan and India never really had any problems with each other and since India has a much better economy to speak of, they've been giving Afghanistan a ton of $$$ in aid. They even offered to help train the Afghan National Army. Of course, a very green and uneasy Pakistan sought to block all goods trying to make their way from India to Afghanistan and this trade route is still a point of contention.
My main point is that Pakistan really doesn't want to help Afghanistan at all. Pakistan supports the Taliban and does not allow coallition troops to chase them over the border into Pakistan. Perhaps Pakistan even wants Afghanistan to be a messy unstable country. If Afghanistan is unstable, Pakistan does not have to worry about being in the awkward position of being smushed between two strong buddies. My fear is that we are putting too much faith-and money-into this campaign. Both Pakistan and Afghanistan are known for their government corruption and drug trade...good guys huh??
Recently there has been talk of senior Taliban leaders wanting to meet with US officials to start "talks." It is my opinion that though this could be a good thing, we should be very cautious. The Taliban can def. be worked with, but they need to reject Al-Qaeda(who cannot be negotiated with in my opinion) and agree to voice their opinions(right, wrong, or indifferent) through legal means. Their views of women are very bothersome to me, but even their opinions should be heard in the legislature while disallowing their violent and repressive actions against women and others.
Friday, July 3, 2009
I may have a conflict(blood) diamond??
Quick background if you have not seen the movie "Blood Diamond" (which I highly recommend):
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an international governmental certification scheme that was set up to prevent the trade in diamonds that fund conflict. Launched in '03, it requires governments to certify that shipments of rough diamonds are free from blood diamonds(also endorced by the UN). The idea is for members to only trade among themselves in an effort to keep conflict diamonds out of the market.
The problemo though is that the diamond industry is not policing itself effectively and governments don't bother to hold them accountable for this. The illicit diamond trade is still flourishing as diamonds are a high value product that are very easily smuggled across borders. In Sierra Leone, experts assess the illicit trade to be about 20%. Not to mention that illicit trade has been shown to fund terrorism and aid money-laundering activities. In Guinea diamond production has increased 500% in recent years...which is quite interresting as Guinea doesn't really have any diamond mines?? Obviously they're being smuggled in from Sierra Leone or Liberia...or the DRC even.
The military in Zimbabwe, under the control of Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), killed more than 200 people in a violent takeover of the diamond fields in late 2008. (According to a recent Human Rights Watch report->http://www.hrw.org/node/83960)
What about the US?? A recent United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that blood diamonds may be entering the US because of major weaknesses in the implementation of the Clean Diamond Trade Act. This is sadly ironic that as we buy these conflict diamonds, the funds are going directly to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda->( Washington Post journalist Douglas Farah wrote a good book on this: "Blood From Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror").
Sadly, being the chronic-realist that I am, I really don't see anything being done about this as where there is $$ to be made, greed and corruption are close behind. I guess just be aware and appreciate your "rock(s)" a little more as it may have cost people their lives.
***To end on a more positive note, check out this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25718236-25837,00.html
-apparently they've never been to, or heard stories from the US/Mexican border haha.
The Kimberley Process Certification Scheme is an international governmental certification scheme that was set up to prevent the trade in diamonds that fund conflict. Launched in '03, it requires governments to certify that shipments of rough diamonds are free from blood diamonds(also endorced by the UN). The idea is for members to only trade among themselves in an effort to keep conflict diamonds out of the market.
The problemo though is that the diamond industry is not policing itself effectively and governments don't bother to hold them accountable for this. The illicit diamond trade is still flourishing as diamonds are a high value product that are very easily smuggled across borders. In Sierra Leone, experts assess the illicit trade to be about 20%. Not to mention that illicit trade has been shown to fund terrorism and aid money-laundering activities. In Guinea diamond production has increased 500% in recent years...which is quite interresting as Guinea doesn't really have any diamond mines?? Obviously they're being smuggled in from Sierra Leone or Liberia...or the DRC even.
The military in Zimbabwe, under the control of Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF), killed more than 200 people in a violent takeover of the diamond fields in late 2008. (According to a recent Human Rights Watch report->http://www.hrw.org/node/83960)
What about the US?? A recent United States Government Accountability Office (GAO) report shows that blood diamonds may be entering the US because of major weaknesses in the implementation of the Clean Diamond Trade Act. This is sadly ironic that as we buy these conflict diamonds, the funds are going directly to terrorist organizations like Al Qaeda->( Washington Post journalist Douglas Farah wrote a good book on this: "Blood From Stones: The Secret Financial Network of Terror").
Sadly, being the chronic-realist that I am, I really don't see anything being done about this as where there is $$ to be made, greed and corruption are close behind. I guess just be aware and appreciate your "rock(s)" a little more as it may have cost people their lives.
***To end on a more positive note, check out this article:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25718236-25837,00.html
-apparently they've never been to, or heard stories from the US/Mexican border haha.
Friday, June 26, 2009
Oh, i've forgotten about Iraq
Ok, The untimely deaths of Michael Jackson and Farrah Fawcett have dominated our "news" these last 24 hrs, with Iran before that. The continued operations in Iraq almost seem a distant memory as far as our "media" is concerned.
**The spellings of some of these Arabic words/names may be different from what you read in NYT. I try to get my info from many sources including Al Jazeera and I tend to mix and match spelling variations-I apologize for any confusion**
In case you missed it, yesterday a bombing killed an estimated 75+ people in a section of Baghdad that is home to over 2 million people. This is just the most recent in a string of attacks- including the suicide bombings of a Shiite Muslim shrine right outside of Baghdad.
In the past month, there have been over 35 explosions. All of these acts of violence have been perpetrated against Shiites by al-Zarqawi's(who was killed in June by a US air-strike) successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who has taken over as leader of al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Two Rivers (AQI)-or al-Qaida in Iraq. Their main "beef" is with Shiites at large, whom they refer to as "Rawafid" -which means, "those who reject." Which, though true, has become a derrogatory term.
al-Zarqawi's ideas and strategies have been questioned and criticized by many of his supporters and predecessors including al-Zawahiri himself (arguably the leader of al-Qaida). They claim that al Zarqawi invented a new form of Salafi jihadism.
Salafi basically refers to the idea that Islam was "perfect" up to the 2 generations following the death of Muhammad...and then it went down the shitter due to materialism and cultural changes. Salafism basically seeks to go back to the "original" form of Islam and is pretty much the same as Wahhabism, though followers of Salafism reject Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's changing the name to his own.
Why do I deem this all important??
'Cause under an agreement signed last year between the US and Iraq, American troops must leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, and President Obama has pledged to withdraw most Americans from Iraq by the end of 2010. Officials in both governments, however, have said the pullback might be delayed in areas where violence remains high.
It would seem as though the violence not only remains high, but is increasing.
**I found the first article/blurb interresting/scary: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/primarysources
**The spellings of some of these Arabic words/names may be different from what you read in NYT. I try to get my info from many sources including Al Jazeera and I tend to mix and match spelling variations-I apologize for any confusion**
In case you missed it, yesterday a bombing killed an estimated 75+ people in a section of Baghdad that is home to over 2 million people. This is just the most recent in a string of attacks- including the suicide bombings of a Shiite Muslim shrine right outside of Baghdad.
In the past month, there have been over 35 explosions. All of these acts of violence have been perpetrated against Shiites by al-Zarqawi's(who was killed in June by a US air-strike) successor, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir, who has taken over as leader of al-Qa'ida in the Land of the Two Rivers (AQI)-or al-Qaida in Iraq. Their main "beef" is with Shiites at large, whom they refer to as "Rawafid" -which means, "those who reject." Which, though true, has become a derrogatory term.
al-Zarqawi's ideas and strategies have been questioned and criticized by many of his supporters and predecessors including al-Zawahiri himself (arguably the leader of al-Qaida). They claim that al Zarqawi invented a new form of Salafi jihadism.
Salafi basically refers to the idea that Islam was "perfect" up to the 2 generations following the death of Muhammad...and then it went down the shitter due to materialism and cultural changes. Salafism basically seeks to go back to the "original" form of Islam and is pretty much the same as Wahhabism, though followers of Salafism reject Muhammad ibn Abd-al-Wahhab's changing the name to his own.
Why do I deem this all important??
'Cause under an agreement signed last year between the US and Iraq, American troops must leave Iraqi cities by the end of June, and President Obama has pledged to withdraw most Americans from Iraq by the end of 2010. Officials in both governments, however, have said the pullback might be delayed in areas where violence remains high.
It would seem as though the violence not only remains high, but is increasing.
**I found the first article/blurb interresting/scary: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200706/primarysources
Thursday, June 25, 2009
Musings on non-violence and Iran
These past few days i've been watching/reading quite a bit on Iran. Also, last night I watched Gandhi w/ my mom as I thought it a travesty she had never seen it (it made it's debut in '82->few years before me haha). I got to thinking about Gandhi's concept of "Satyagraha" which has been loosely translated to mean "passive resistance". This is not a proper translation as it has been compared to translating "light" as "non-darkness" Basically, it is only takes a passive form b/c it espouses self-restraint. One may be more familiar w/ Thoreau's concept of "Civil Disobedience"-which Gandhi read.
I am doubful, per usual, but I wonder if something like this would work in Iran? The Islamic Republic of Iran is no more brutal than the British were, if not less so(the Amritsar Massacre comes to mind as well as the brutal put-down of the march on the Dharasana Salt Works). There was the misunderstanding that those who practiced this concept of non-violent resistance were cowards-quite the opposite is true. I know that I most certainly would not be able to to march peacefully-not raising a hand- as a group of men wielding steel-tipped clubs beat the shit out of me. I am def. the kind of person who when hit, hits back.
I also think of Dr. King Jr. (who based a lot of the Civil Rights Movement on Gandhi's writings) when he said "returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
I guess the main issue here is how far are both the oppressed and the oppressors willing to go? How many people have to die before one side gives in? Many, many, Indians and African Americans died in their struggle. How many Iranians have to die before there is a change there? How many Czechs had to die before the Moscow Protocols were signed?
Of course there have been failures like China in 1989 in not only Tiananmen Square(Beijing), but also in Shanghai, Nanking, Hunan, and Hong Kong. These protests were very violently put-down and nothing changed. Had the people continued, who knows what would have happened? It is such a great sacrifice though.
The main goal of non-violent resistance is to shame the oppressors for using violent force against it until they grow weary of all the violence. The down-side is that it takes a very courageous and strong solidarity. One person could ruin the whole movement. I for one know that if I were demonstrating and I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqGx_aI-Ng
I would react violently. Does this kind of thinking that people like Gandhi encourage ask too much of people? Does it require too much bloodshed and sacrifice? Is it fair to say that there are ideals that people should be willing to die for, but not to kill for? Also, with Moussavi M.I. A., will the protesting stop- do such movements require a strong leader? Feel free to share your thoughts.
As an addendum:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I was confused about who the Basij was, and how they differed from the Revolutionary Guards, the army, and the plain ol' police. Upon further insomnia-inspired research, I figured it all out and assigned my family members their appropriate spots:
-Basij- My parents would be great candidates for this group. Though it comprises mainly of indoctrinated young(sorry mom) thugs, they would fit the bill because of what vigilantes these folks are. These religious zealots mainly join for the benefits they can recieve(my parents are religious for the "benefits" of an afterlife) and are responsible for cruelty towards those who are guilty of any infraction against the Koran( My parents also feel the need to judge based on a Holy Book)
-Artesh (Regular Army)- My youngest sister fits this bill. Very non-political and relatively unreliable. The Artesh's main responsibility is to guard the borders and military service for 2 years is manditory.
-Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard)- Gina would be great for this. Their loyalty to the Revolution and the regime is unwavering. They were created after the 1979 revolution because the fledgling government did not trust the military for protection. This groups is given a lot of independence as they are an extremely devoted and trustworthy.
I am doubful, per usual, but I wonder if something like this would work in Iran? The Islamic Republic of Iran is no more brutal than the British were, if not less so(the Amritsar Massacre comes to mind as well as the brutal put-down of the march on the Dharasana Salt Works). There was the misunderstanding that those who practiced this concept of non-violent resistance were cowards-quite the opposite is true. I know that I most certainly would not be able to to march peacefully-not raising a hand- as a group of men wielding steel-tipped clubs beat the shit out of me. I am def. the kind of person who when hit, hits back.
I also think of Dr. King Jr. (who based a lot of the Civil Rights Movement on Gandhi's writings) when he said "returning violence for violence multiplies violence, adding deeper darkness to a night already devoid of stars."
I guess the main issue here is how far are both the oppressed and the oppressors willing to go? How many people have to die before one side gives in? Many, many, Indians and African Americans died in their struggle. How many Iranians have to die before there is a change there? How many Czechs had to die before the Moscow Protocols were signed?
Of course there have been failures like China in 1989 in not only Tiananmen Square(Beijing), but also in Shanghai, Nanking, Hunan, and Hong Kong. These protests were very violently put-down and nothing changed. Had the people continued, who knows what would have happened? It is such a great sacrifice though.
The main goal of non-violent resistance is to shame the oppressors for using violent force against it until they grow weary of all the violence. The down-side is that it takes a very courageous and strong solidarity. One person could ruin the whole movement. I for one know that if I were demonstrating and I saw this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oqGx_aI-Ng
I would react violently. Does this kind of thinking that people like Gandhi encourage ask too much of people? Does it require too much bloodshed and sacrifice? Is it fair to say that there are ideals that people should be willing to die for, but not to kill for? Also, with Moussavi M.I. A., will the protesting stop- do such movements require a strong leader? Feel free to share your thoughts.
As an addendum:
Perhaps I am in the minority, but I was confused about who the Basij was, and how they differed from the Revolutionary Guards, the army, and the plain ol' police. Upon further insomnia-inspired research, I figured it all out and assigned my family members their appropriate spots:
-Basij- My parents would be great candidates for this group. Though it comprises mainly of indoctrinated young(sorry mom) thugs, they would fit the bill because of what vigilantes these folks are. These religious zealots mainly join for the benefits they can recieve(my parents are religious for the "benefits" of an afterlife) and are responsible for cruelty towards those who are guilty of any infraction against the Koran( My parents also feel the need to judge based on a Holy Book)
-Artesh (Regular Army)- My youngest sister fits this bill. Very non-political and relatively unreliable. The Artesh's main responsibility is to guard the borders and military service for 2 years is manditory.
-Pasdaran (Revolutionary Guard)- Gina would be great for this. Their loyalty to the Revolution and the regime is unwavering. They were created after the 1979 revolution because the fledgling government did not trust the military for protection. This groups is given a lot of independence as they are an extremely devoted and trustworthy.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
MO' Movies that'll teach ya' sumthin'
On my continued quest to not get dumb after school, I am still watching educational movies...mostly at 3am when I cannot sleep. This week's movies were The Last King of Scotland and A Passage To India.
In The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whittaker plays Ugandan President-turned dictator- Idi Amin. James McAvoy is the main character, playing Amin's doctor(a fictional role). If I may insert a disclaimer here, apparently this film was made after a book, written by a British author, which would totally ruin my stance on "Read before Watching" but I was totally unaware of this. Mea Culpa!!!
Basically, I already had some background on Amin's very oppressive and bloody rule. It is estimated that he killed some 200,000 Ugandans. His ties to the PLO were also well portrayed in the film when the 1976 flight from Athens was hijacked by the PLO and the occupants were taken to Uganda before negotiations secured the release of most of the occupants (Israeli troops came in and got the rest(this was not showin in the film)-Israeli citizens were the only ones not released by Amin) in exchange for the release of jailed PLO members.
I thought the movie was really good. I saw the human side of Amin and could-to an extent- understand his growing paranoia. I would def reccomend this film!! Oh, the reference to Scotland is basically Amin's deep respect for the Scottish who fought against the British (Uganda had also been under British imperial rule).
At least I read the book to the second movie I watched: A Passage To India. It was slightly different than the movie, but E.M. Forster's book was by far much better. I would highly reccomend it!! The movie was pretty good though. The basic plot line(of the movie) is India circa 1920's, during British Imperialist rule. A young English woman and her future mother-in-law travel to India to visit her fiance', who is the chief magistrate in the area. The women are aghast at how the British treat the Indian people and wish to see the "real" India. They meet and befriend a well-educated Indian doctor. During an outing the English woman accuses the Indian doctor of rapping her and the whole area is turned upside down during the trial. The woman recants her testimony but she completely ruins the way the Indian doctor sees the world. He rejects the Western ways that he so admired and wished to be a part of before, and goes back to tradional Muslim garb and outlook.
All in all, it is an amazing story(book or film tho I def preferred the book) and really shows the brutality of British Imperialism and the twisted way of thinking at that time-very similar to Conrad's Heart of Darkness or Achebe's Things Fall Apart in that I find all three of these books have very sad undertones (I have to re-read Conrad b/c i've realized how much I missed out of when I read books in h.s. and was not yet ready to appreciate them fully).
My new saying that I've picked up from Jon Stewart applies well to my thoughts on many of the characters in these kinds of films/books: " Wow-Be a Fucking Person."
In The Last King of Scotland, Forest Whittaker plays Ugandan President-turned dictator- Idi Amin. James McAvoy is the main character, playing Amin's doctor(a fictional role). If I may insert a disclaimer here, apparently this film was made after a book, written by a British author, which would totally ruin my stance on "Read before Watching" but I was totally unaware of this. Mea Culpa!!!
Basically, I already had some background on Amin's very oppressive and bloody rule. It is estimated that he killed some 200,000 Ugandans. His ties to the PLO were also well portrayed in the film when the 1976 flight from Athens was hijacked by the PLO and the occupants were taken to Uganda before negotiations secured the release of most of the occupants (Israeli troops came in and got the rest(this was not showin in the film)-Israeli citizens were the only ones not released by Amin) in exchange for the release of jailed PLO members.
I thought the movie was really good. I saw the human side of Amin and could-to an extent- understand his growing paranoia. I would def reccomend this film!! Oh, the reference to Scotland is basically Amin's deep respect for the Scottish who fought against the British (Uganda had also been under British imperial rule).
At least I read the book to the second movie I watched: A Passage To India. It was slightly different than the movie, but E.M. Forster's book was by far much better. I would highly reccomend it!! The movie was pretty good though. The basic plot line(of the movie) is India circa 1920's, during British Imperialist rule. A young English woman and her future mother-in-law travel to India to visit her fiance', who is the chief magistrate in the area. The women are aghast at how the British treat the Indian people and wish to see the "real" India. They meet and befriend a well-educated Indian doctor. During an outing the English woman accuses the Indian doctor of rapping her and the whole area is turned upside down during the trial. The woman recants her testimony but she completely ruins the way the Indian doctor sees the world. He rejects the Western ways that he so admired and wished to be a part of before, and goes back to tradional Muslim garb and outlook.
All in all, it is an amazing story(book or film tho I def preferred the book) and really shows the brutality of British Imperialism and the twisted way of thinking at that time-very similar to Conrad's Heart of Darkness or Achebe's Things Fall Apart in that I find all three of these books have very sad undertones (I have to re-read Conrad b/c i've realized how much I missed out of when I read books in h.s. and was not yet ready to appreciate them fully).
My new saying that I've picked up from Jon Stewart applies well to my thoughts on many of the characters in these kinds of films/books: " Wow-Be a Fucking Person."
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Movie critiques-> It's rainy, sit on your ass and learn a 'lil sumthin'
I learn best through a variety of methods. In brushing up on my history/foreign policy, i've been trying to watch pertinent movies. Tonite...well, at 3:00 am, I am watching Breaker Morant This movie takes place during the Boer War of the early 1900's between the Dutch Boer settlers and the British Empire.
It basically is a court-room drama( Law and Order South Africa??) as 3 Austrailian soldiers are accused of War Crimes while they maintained they were only following orders in an unconventional war against guerilla fighters. Wow, does this seem familiar??? I would also compare the "scorched earth" policy that the British employed (similar to Sherman's March To The Sea->bastard dashed my dreams of ever living in a beautiful southern plantation house with a wrap-around porch and slaves quarters->JK JK JK about the last part haha) to what we did in Fallujah:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/fallujah-tent-city-awaits-compensation.html
The movie was made in the 80s (as was I-hahaha) but it explores topics and questions that we still are trying to answer today. As I mentioned with the case of Fallujah, how logical is the idea that we implemented during Vietnam that "we have to destroy it to save it." Who are the bad guys in the film? Is there a bias? I think so, but I want other people to watch it and discuss it with me.
The weather has been shitty the past few days so I think ya'll should go out and rent this educational film and have a "history-buff, though not IN the buff, dork-out fest" with me. I'm adding this movie to the list that i'm trying to get my family to watch. I got Blood Diamond off the list(more so for their curiosity at a movie that could make me cry continually for 10mins) but I still need them to watch Why We Fight, which is a movie about the Military Industrial Complex(coined wisely by Eisenhower) ie. the American War Machine. It features the John McCain that I would have voted for...not the guy who ran on the GOP ticket this past election.
Go rent the movie, or pirate it off the internet (as I do haha) and do some thinking-lest we see the events of the movie Idiocracy unfold.(Thank you for telling me to see it David) That movie was pretty entertaining and really may come to be a reality in the future. We see everyday that educated people are not reproducing at the rate of uneducated morons. To me, this is prolly the most realistic dystopia-or utopia, depending on whether or not you think an idiotic, sex-crazed, overly-commercialist society is a good thing?? ...Uhh.. wait...don't we already live in that kind of society already?? haha.
Obv. my rainy day activity is watching movies!!
It basically is a court-room drama( Law and Order South Africa??) as 3 Austrailian soldiers are accused of War Crimes while they maintained they were only following orders in an unconventional war against guerilla fighters. Wow, does this seem familiar??? I would also compare the "scorched earth" policy that the British employed (similar to Sherman's March To The Sea->bastard dashed my dreams of ever living in a beautiful southern plantation house with a wrap-around porch and slaves quarters->JK JK JK about the last part haha) to what we did in Fallujah:
http://www.juancole.com/2005/03/fallujah-tent-city-awaits-compensation.html
The movie was made in the 80s (as was I-hahaha) but it explores topics and questions that we still are trying to answer today. As I mentioned with the case of Fallujah, how logical is the idea that we implemented during Vietnam that "we have to destroy it to save it." Who are the bad guys in the film? Is there a bias? I think so, but I want other people to watch it and discuss it with me.
The weather has been shitty the past few days so I think ya'll should go out and rent this educational film and have a "history-buff, though not IN the buff, dork-out fest" with me. I'm adding this movie to the list that i'm trying to get my family to watch. I got Blood Diamond off the list(more so for their curiosity at a movie that could make me cry continually for 10mins) but I still need them to watch Why We Fight, which is a movie about the Military Industrial Complex(coined wisely by Eisenhower) ie. the American War Machine. It features the John McCain that I would have voted for...not the guy who ran on the GOP ticket this past election.
Go rent the movie, or pirate it off the internet (as I do haha) and do some thinking-lest we see the events of the movie Idiocracy unfold.(Thank you for telling me to see it David) That movie was pretty entertaining and really may come to be a reality in the future. We see everyday that educated people are not reproducing at the rate of uneducated morons. To me, this is prolly the most realistic dystopia-or utopia, depending on whether or not you think an idiotic, sex-crazed, overly-commercialist society is a good thing?? ...Uhh.. wait...don't we already live in that kind of society already?? haha.
Obv. my rainy day activity is watching movies!!
Sunday, May 31, 2009
MO' N. Korea
http://www.juneauempire.com/stories/053109/reg_445612201.shtml
No Idiot!! As I believe I stated in my last post, we should sit this one out!!!
Don't worry though, I also feel the need to attack Obama on this issue as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/25/us.north.korea.react/index.html
-In that article, Obama made the statement: "North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation...
The top-ranking U.S. military officer said Monday that North Korea's reported nuclear test is a primarily a diplomatic matter right now, not a military one."
Uh, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't N. Korea WANT to be isolated and left alone?? When we establish sanctions on these "rogue states" we basically do the opposite of what we want to do. I don't think I am articulating this one well (Still in vaca-and I mean vacation and not the spanish word for cow-mode) Take a country like Iran for instance- They are sanctioned up to their necks. The result-> They have been able to rally a lot of nationalistic support from their people and still do whatever they want without the Intl. Community breathing down their necks too much.
I am not saying that things change overnight- look at China. Since China has really opened up and become a legit world player, there are constant calls on them to check themselves on issues like human rights. They are no where near where I would like them to be on these issues, but they do seem to have become more aware of this constant scrutiny.
I do not think that countries like North Korea or Iran are necessarily chomping at the bit to become legit members of the Intl. Community and isolating them with sanctions and such seems, at least to me, to be counter-productive.
No Idiot!! As I believe I stated in my last post, we should sit this one out!!!
Don't worry though, I also feel the need to attack Obama on this issue as well:
http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/05/25/us.north.korea.react/index.html
-In that article, Obama made the statement: "North Korea's behavior increases tensions and undermines stability in Northeast Asia. Such provocations will only serve to deepen North Korea's isolation...
The top-ranking U.S. military officer said Monday that North Korea's reported nuclear test is a primarily a diplomatic matter right now, not a military one."
Uh, correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't N. Korea WANT to be isolated and left alone?? When we establish sanctions on these "rogue states" we basically do the opposite of what we want to do. I don't think I am articulating this one well (Still in vaca-and I mean vacation and not the spanish word for cow-mode) Take a country like Iran for instance- They are sanctioned up to their necks. The result-> They have been able to rally a lot of nationalistic support from their people and still do whatever they want without the Intl. Community breathing down their necks too much.
I am not saying that things change overnight- look at China. Since China has really opened up and become a legit world player, there are constant calls on them to check themselves on issues like human rights. They are no where near where I would like them to be on these issues, but they do seem to have become more aware of this constant scrutiny.
I do not think that countries like North Korea or Iran are necessarily chomping at the bit to become legit members of the Intl. Community and isolating them with sanctions and such seems, at least to me, to be counter-productive.
Monday, May 25, 2009
New Business-Lil bit o' N. Korea
Ok, so, most people that I call friends know a few things about me: 1. I don't ever shut up. 2. I am opinionated to a fault. 3. I love politics and discussing them. I want to share my opinions on things but I have found that some issues are too advanced and complicated for my "Note" readers to comprehend. I do not want to discuss these issues on my personal blog because That is where I bitch about life...so I decided to make this one a little more broad as I do not think anyone looks at it anyway. Today I got a lovely text from my fiance: "Hey, I'm sure you already know, but N. Korea tested a nuclear bomb underground." Much to my chagrin, I had not already read/seen this as I had some errands to run immed. upon waking up.
Funny that a few weeks ago I helped my sister prepare for an oral report on Kim Jong Il. I had made mention of how I thought there was no way that they were anywhere near real nuclear capabilities. MY MISTAKE haha. Look at the evidence though-they can't even get a successful rocket and satellite into space. Their two attempts in 1998 and 2006 were total failures, they barely got off the ground before blowing up. This past April they did manage to get a long range missil off the ground, over Japan, and into the Paciffic Ocean somewhere.
These underground nuclear bombs they are setting off are comparable to our '45 nuclear bombs. I can more comfortably say that they are no where near capable of getting them small enough to become a warhead on one of their shitty missiles. What I think our response should be is to publically stand behind China. China is a big ally to N. Korea and they are PISSED about these underground tests. Russia and Japan, though the latter really has no military, are also very upset about this new development. I say the US sits this one out and let's the regional powers handle it. It is in our best interrest to have China and N. Korea at odds, so let it happen.
Funny that a few weeks ago I helped my sister prepare for an oral report on Kim Jong Il. I had made mention of how I thought there was no way that they were anywhere near real nuclear capabilities. MY MISTAKE haha. Look at the evidence though-they can't even get a successful rocket and satellite into space. Their two attempts in 1998 and 2006 were total failures, they barely got off the ground before blowing up. This past April they did manage to get a long range missil off the ground, over Japan, and into the Paciffic Ocean somewhere.
These underground nuclear bombs they are setting off are comparable to our '45 nuclear bombs. I can more comfortably say that they are no where near capable of getting them small enough to become a warhead on one of their shitty missiles. What I think our response should be is to publically stand behind China. China is a big ally to N. Korea and they are PISSED about these underground tests. Russia and Japan, though the latter really has no military, are also very upset about this new development. I say the US sits this one out and let's the regional powers handle it. It is in our best interrest to have China and N. Korea at odds, so let it happen.
Wednesday, April 22, 2009
Speaking out of both sides of your mouth
I don’t know if anyone has ever taken notice of the spectators at a professional ping-pong match. I don’t know if anyone even watches professional ping-pong for that matter. I am sure though that one can imagine the audience of such a spectacle to constantly be jerking their heads back and forth-That is kind of how I feel watching the Jekyll and Hyde performance that the White House Foreign Policy has recently undertaken with regards to Sudan.
Ok, let’s being the match during the Cold War. The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) failed in their attempt to overthrow Jaafar Mohammed Nimeri, who had come to power in a coup in 1969. This failed attempt caused Nimeri to disengage with the Soviets and open up ties with the Ford Administration. Washington was thrilled and the friendly relationship improved throughout the ‘70s. According to Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA, “In 1978, Nimeiri’s government supported the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel-the only Arab state to do so-and was compensated accordingly by the U.S (29).”
Of course it is important to note that the Sudanese people saw not a dime of this “compensation.” In 1983, Nimeiri decided to institute Sharia (Islamic) law; by this point, Reagan was president and not only did he give Nimeiri the thumbs up, but he also provided “crucial financial support.” In 1985, the Nimeiri regime was overthrown and US aid began to wane-though still providing “Sudan with more economic and military assistance than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa (36).”
In 1988, during the new George H. W. Bush Administration, a major famine broke out in Sudan. Khartoum was loathe to do anything to feed their people, but Washington took a surprisingly hard line in stating that it “would begin delivering food to civilians in the south whether the Sudanese government liked it or not (37).” It is interesting to note that US aid in the form of food actually dropped at this time. The authors point out that former Sec. Of State, Kissinger, had stated that “disaster relief is becoming increasingly a major instrument of our foreign policy…and Washington’s aid was closely tied to Khartoum’s willingness to pursue favored economic reforms (41).”
In 1989, Khartoum signed an oil agreement with Libya. This, coupled with the expected end of the Cold War really diminished the US-Sudanese ties and US aid really wilted at this time. Also in 1989, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir came to power in a coup. Bashir continued with Sharia law in a more authoritative manner. He also sought to establish very close relations with other Arab nations including Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. He also tried to get closer to Iran, through their shared ties to Islam (Iranians are not Arabic, but Persians). At this time, Washinton tried to bait Khartoum away from these Arab nations with offers of more aid or less aid depending on whether or not Khartoum changed their song and dance sort-to-speak.
The final break was when Khartoum supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Sudan was added to the U.S. list of State Sponsored Terrorism. In 1996, Sudan was included in its “Anti-terrorism Act, barring U.S. companies from operating in the country, and then placed Sudan under comprehensive sanctions in the fall of 1997 (47).”
Fast-track to post September 11, 2001: Sudan begins to increase its sharing of counter-terror intelligence with the U.S. Khartoum grants the U.S. permission to question detained Al-Qaida operatives and both come together to spy on Iraqi rebels. Such a convivial little relationship is established that “Sudanese government officials had reportedly been invited to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address, though they were later told not to attend due to the increasing attention being paid to the conflict in Darfur(49).”
Despite the U.S. blocking measures to hold Khartoum accountable for crimes perpetuated against their citizens, Washington has been almost totally alone in declaring the War Crimes in Darfur as literal “Genocide.” Thinking critically about this, one can easily explain this seemingly apparent contrast. The average citizen does not know about things Bush rejected, like the Sudanese Peace Act, which would have financially supported rebels in their efforts against Khartoum. The average citizen does however hear Bush’s voice through their television declaring “Not on my watch” with regards to the Genocide in Darfur. What is this but a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the American people?
**Quotes taken from Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA
Ok, let’s being the match during the Cold War. The Sudanese Communist Party (SCP) failed in their attempt to overthrow Jaafar Mohammed Nimeri, who had come to power in a coup in 1969. This failed attempt caused Nimeri to disengage with the Soviets and open up ties with the Ford Administration. Washington was thrilled and the friendly relationship improved throughout the ‘70s. According to Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA, “In 1978, Nimeiri’s government supported the Camp David peace agreement between Egypt and Israel-the only Arab state to do so-and was compensated accordingly by the U.S (29).”
Of course it is important to note that the Sudanese people saw not a dime of this “compensation.” In 1983, Nimeiri decided to institute Sharia (Islamic) law; by this point, Reagan was president and not only did he give Nimeiri the thumbs up, but he also provided “crucial financial support.” In 1985, the Nimeiri regime was overthrown and US aid began to wane-though still providing “Sudan with more economic and military assistance than any other country in sub-Saharan Africa (36).”
In 1988, during the new George H. W. Bush Administration, a major famine broke out in Sudan. Khartoum was loathe to do anything to feed their people, but Washington took a surprisingly hard line in stating that it “would begin delivering food to civilians in the south whether the Sudanese government liked it or not (37).” It is interesting to note that US aid in the form of food actually dropped at this time. The authors point out that former Sec. Of State, Kissinger, had stated that “disaster relief is becoming increasingly a major instrument of our foreign policy…and Washington’s aid was closely tied to Khartoum’s willingness to pursue favored economic reforms (41).”
In 1989, Khartoum signed an oil agreement with Libya. This, coupled with the expected end of the Cold War really diminished the US-Sudanese ties and US aid really wilted at this time. Also in 1989, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir came to power in a coup. Bashir continued with Sharia law in a more authoritative manner. He also sought to establish very close relations with other Arab nations including Egypt, Iraq, and Libya. He also tried to get closer to Iran, through their shared ties to Islam (Iranians are not Arabic, but Persians). At this time, Washinton tried to bait Khartoum away from these Arab nations with offers of more aid or less aid depending on whether or not Khartoum changed their song and dance sort-to-speak.
The final break was when Khartoum supported the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait in 1990. Sudan was added to the U.S. list of State Sponsored Terrorism. In 1996, Sudan was included in its “Anti-terrorism Act, barring U.S. companies from operating in the country, and then placed Sudan under comprehensive sanctions in the fall of 1997 (47).”
Fast-track to post September 11, 2001: Sudan begins to increase its sharing of counter-terror intelligence with the U.S. Khartoum grants the U.S. permission to question detained Al-Qaida operatives and both come together to spy on Iraqi rebels. Such a convivial little relationship is established that “Sudanese government officials had reportedly been invited to Bush’s 2004 State of the Union address, though they were later told not to attend due to the increasing attention being paid to the conflict in Darfur(49).”
Despite the U.S. blocking measures to hold Khartoum accountable for crimes perpetuated against their citizens, Washington has been almost totally alone in declaring the War Crimes in Darfur as literal “Genocide.” Thinking critically about this, one can easily explain this seemingly apparent contrast. The average citizen does not know about things Bush rejected, like the Sudanese Peace Act, which would have financially supported rebels in their efforts against Khartoum. The average citizen does however hear Bush’s voice through their television declaring “Not on my watch” with regards to the Genocide in Darfur. What is this but a deliberate attempt to hoodwink the American people?
**Quotes taken from Kevin Funk and Steven Fake’s book, The Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA
Wednesday, March 18, 2009
Hil-dog has some harsh words
President Bashir of Sudan responded to his ICC-issued arrest warrant by expelling 13 large foreign aid agencies. Most of these agencies opperated in Darfur, and Bashir accused them of spying for the ICC. A United Nations estimate stated that the expulsion threatenes more than 3 million people with the loss of food, aid, health care, and suitable drinking water.
U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary "Hil-dog" Clinton has been quoted as saying, "The real question is what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on President Bashir and the government in Khartoum to understand that they will be held responsible for every single death that occures in those camps."
Elisabeth Byrs, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that without a quick return of the NGO's, some 1.5 million people in Darfur will lack health care. 1.6 million will lose safe drinking water and hygeine services, and hundreds of thousands will risk inadequate shelter and other problems with the coming onset of Sudan's rainy season. More than 2.5 million displaced people are entirely dependent upon foreign aid groups for their survival.
This all comes after three aid workers for Doctors Without Borders were kidnapped this Wednesday. Though they were all released unharmed, Doctors Without Borders has begun to withdraw most of it's remaining international staff from Darfur.
As if that wasn't enough doom and gloom, eight gunmen attacked a group of international peacekeeps on patrol, killing one of them. To not be too much of a somber sally, it was the first time a peacekeeper has been killed since the ICC issued their warrant for Bashir.
Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright added that she "doesn't think the international community can stand by and watch as thousands more people starve to death."
I will be curious to see if something really is done, or if this will sadly go down as another Rwanda, where the international community sits back and watches a massacre.
U.S. Secretary of State, Hillary "Hil-dog" Clinton has been quoted as saying, "The real question is what kind of pressure can be brought to bear on President Bashir and the government in Khartoum to understand that they will be held responsible for every single death that occures in those camps."
Elisabeth Byrs, spokeswoman for the U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs, said that without a quick return of the NGO's, some 1.5 million people in Darfur will lack health care. 1.6 million will lose safe drinking water and hygeine services, and hundreds of thousands will risk inadequate shelter and other problems with the coming onset of Sudan's rainy season. More than 2.5 million displaced people are entirely dependent upon foreign aid groups for their survival.
This all comes after three aid workers for Doctors Without Borders were kidnapped this Wednesday. Though they were all released unharmed, Doctors Without Borders has begun to withdraw most of it's remaining international staff from Darfur.
As if that wasn't enough doom and gloom, eight gunmen attacked a group of international peacekeeps on patrol, killing one of them. To not be too much of a somber sally, it was the first time a peacekeeper has been killed since the ICC issued their warrant for Bashir.
Former Secretary of State, Madeleine Albright added that she "doesn't think the international community can stand by and watch as thousands more people starve to death."
I will be curious to see if something really is done, or if this will sadly go down as another Rwanda, where the international community sits back and watches a massacre.
"Can't touch this!"
Forgive me for the title- pun, this humanitarian crisis is no laughing matter, but i could not help myself.
In my title, i was refering to the Sudanese president's (Omar al-Bashir) denouncement of the warrent for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court on March 4th of this year. This was the first time that the 7-year old court has sought to arrest a sitting head of state. Mr. Bashir has been indicted on SEVEN counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity(but not for genocide).
According to the New York Times, since 2003, up to 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.
To the great applause of supporters(mostly Arab tribesmen), Bashir claimed that "No ICC or Security Council or any other party will change our path or touch an eyelash in our eye...The president of Sudan is not elected by Britain or America. Sudan is an independent country." He has claimed that the West seeks to create chaos in Sudan similar to Iraq, where he said U.S. forces "killed women and children, looted the country, and planted sedition...Those criminals want to do the same in Sudan."
Dauntingly enough, many Arab and African countries have lobbied in support of Bashir. The Arab League rejected the international arrest warrent, clearing the way for Bashir to attend an Arab Summit in Qatar later this month. It is important to note that only three Arab League states recognize the ICC-Jordan, Dijibouti, and Comoros (no statements have been made by any of them on the issue).
Ahead of the ICC warrant, the African Union, in January of this year, announced its own high-level panel that would investigate Darfur atrocities though the panel has no judicial powers and its mandate remains unclear.
Many African and Arab governments have come out and said that the ICC's move was counter-productive and hypocritical in that it failed to tackle alleged war crimes by Israel against Arabs, or by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. *I must admit that i do see quite a bit of validity in the argument against the hypocricy of this. I would propose that if the ICC really wants to claim legitimacy, the Netherlands-based court should expand some of these warrants.
In my title, i was refering to the Sudanese president's (Omar al-Bashir) denouncement of the warrent for his arrest issued by the International Criminal Court on March 4th of this year. This was the first time that the 7-year old court has sought to arrest a sitting head of state. Mr. Bashir has been indicted on SEVEN counts of war crimes and crimes against humanity(but not for genocide).
According to the New York Times, since 2003, up to 300,000 people have been killed and 2.7 million have been driven from their homes.
To the great applause of supporters(mostly Arab tribesmen), Bashir claimed that "No ICC or Security Council or any other party will change our path or touch an eyelash in our eye...The president of Sudan is not elected by Britain or America. Sudan is an independent country." He has claimed that the West seeks to create chaos in Sudan similar to Iraq, where he said U.S. forces "killed women and children, looted the country, and planted sedition...Those criminals want to do the same in Sudan."
Dauntingly enough, many Arab and African countries have lobbied in support of Bashir. The Arab League rejected the international arrest warrent, clearing the way for Bashir to attend an Arab Summit in Qatar later this month. It is important to note that only three Arab League states recognize the ICC-Jordan, Dijibouti, and Comoros (no statements have been made by any of them on the issue).
Ahead of the ICC warrant, the African Union, in January of this year, announced its own high-level panel that would investigate Darfur atrocities though the panel has no judicial powers and its mandate remains unclear.
Many African and Arab governments have come out and said that the ICC's move was counter-productive and hypocritical in that it failed to tackle alleged war crimes by Israel against Arabs, or by the United States in Iraq and Afghanistan. *I must admit that i do see quite a bit of validity in the argument against the hypocricy of this. I would propose that if the ICC really wants to claim legitimacy, the Netherlands-based court should expand some of these warrants.
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
First Post
If you are interrested in Darfur, please read the book "Scramble For Africa: Darfur-Intervention and the USA" It is a honest, well researched, though equally scathing and shocking look at the humanitarian crisis in Darfur. The authors, Kevin Funk and Steven Fake provide a crititcal analysis of the history of US foreign policy with regards to not only Sudan, but the continent of Africa as a whole!!!
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Scramble-for-Africa-Darfur-Intervention-and-the-USA/10991544835?ref=mf
Other than that, this blog will be about what is going on in Darfur, and Sudan in general. I welcome all comments and questions.
http://www.facebook.com/home.php#/pages/Scramble-for-Africa-Darfur-Intervention-and-the-USA/10991544835?ref=mf
Other than that, this blog will be about what is going on in Darfur, and Sudan in general. I welcome all comments and questions.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
