The way things are shaking out, I think it’s time to revisit Samuel Huntington.
I can’t say I agree completely with his conclusions, but he’s been in the ballpark for a lot of it, so the whole “clash of civilizations” idea is still in the running. This snippet from “Clash of Civilizations” says most of it for me:
“Fifth, cultural characteristics and differences are less mutable and hence less easily compromised and resolved than political and economic ones. In the former Soviet Union, communists can become democrats, the rich can become poor and the poor rich, but Russians cannot become Estonians and Azeris cannot become Armenians. In class and ideological conflicts, the key question was "Which side are you on?" and people could and did choose sides and change sides. In conflicts between civilizations, the question is "What are you?" That is a given that cannot be changed. And as we know, from Bosnia to the Caucasus to the Sudan, the wrong answer to that question can mean a bullet in the head. Even more than ethnicity, religion discriminates sharply and exclusively among people. A person can be half-French and half-Arab and simultaneously even a citizen of two countries. It is more difficult to be half-Catholic and half-Muslim.”
That said, I’d say that the REAL divide right now is between progress and regress, and that really gums up the works. Yes, it’s “us vs. them”, but who are we and who exactly are they?
Well, I’m a white Anglo-Scot male, and I haven’t fallen too far from that tree. I’m a believer in (sustainable) progress, and I’m not interested in any kind of organized religion, but I’m not hostile to any that leave me alone. The first sentence may explain the second, but my worldview/beliefs are my identifiers, not my background.
So who do I see as allies? Anyone anywhere who looks forward, not backward; if you’re interested in the tangible progress of humanity (meaning science and new frontiers of discovery in any discipline) we have something in common.
That’s nice and simple. There is no requirement for any ethnic or religious affiliation, but ones’ implementation of religion is an “us or them” determinant. That brings me to the Enemy…
Those crack-head jihadist sons (and daughters) of multiple fathers are “Number 1 with a bullet”. Bullet is the operative word, because in the short term bullets are the only cure for them. There is any number of Luddite apocalyptic cults of various affiliations, but this Islamic throwback to the bad old days puts all of them in the shade.
I share the opinion that Western Civilization is in mortal danger, but the danger isn’t from idiots with car bombs. The real enemy is those in our civilization who are paving the road to hell with their “good intentions”. Tolerance is great, but there are things that we should NOT be allowing. Top of that list is anyone who wants to destroy our civilization. I know I can speak for a lot of other people, but I’ll speak for myself; if you don’t like progressive (“decadent”) western democracy, stay the hell away from it.
Indeed, feel free to start up your Taliban-style repressive dark-ages shithole countries and live in them. Just be prepared that if you do anything to threaten our interests, we will return and settle your hash again, as many times as necessary, leaving you at that stone-age level that you wish so badly to revisit.
Anyone who opposes that sort of system, THOSE are the people I want immigrating to the western democracies. At all costs we have to screen out all of those who want to turn our countries into that circle of hell, and help the people who want the freedom to live well and dress pretty much how they’d like.
As for countries that we’re trying to sort out, I’ll say right now we can’t do it. In places like Afghanistan and Iraq, a lot more people will have to die than we would be willing to kill before you could affect a cultural shift of sufficient magnitude to have any chance of governments arising there that were compatible with our ideas.
Taking the current situation with Lebanon, if the west and Israel moved in, organized all the non-Shia factions, armed them and helped them kill or drive out every last Hezbollah supporter, maybe then there’d be a chance to stabilize the country and allow it to live peacefully with Israel, and Israel could help (in their own self-interest if naught else) keep the Syrians or Iranians from stirring the pot again.
The cold hard truth is that a lot of people would have to be in some way “ideologically cleansed” from places to separate “us” from “them”. However, one of the ideals of Western thought these days is to not slaughter people who don’t agree with you. This makes our civilization more pleasant than others to live in, but at the same time leaves us vulnerable to those more ruthless than us.
The various Islamist terrorist groups want nothing more than to convert by force the entire world to their repressive and backwards theology, period, full-stop. Anyone who thinks we can negotiate or reach any kind of accommodation with them is a fool. They see all such attempts, (correctly) as a sign of weakness and they will exploit it.
I’d waste my time if I seriously advocated slaughtering our enemies and their support base, but we have potential allies in a lot of these messed-up countries and we should be looking for ways to support them effectively. Israel is dropping the ball in that regard in Lebanon at this moment. There are noises to that effect coming out of the region, so we’ll see if anything useful comes out of the current carnage. My money’s on “no”.
Sunday 30 July 2006
Wednesday 26 July 2006
No Reasonable Explanation
No reasonable explanation, from ANYONE involved.
I can see no reason myself that the Israelis would do something as obviously stupid (and wasteful of more innocent life) as try to kill UN observers.
It may come out in this investigation that Olmert has said he'd do how exactly this came about, but the IDF has to answer to the taxpayers and international law, so it doesn't just throw wads of (expensive) ordnance at things that aren't at least perceived to be a threat. This being said, I have two questions:
I can see no reason myself that the Israelis would do something as obviously stupid (and wasteful of more innocent life) as try to kill UN observers.
It may come out in this investigation that Olmert has said he'd do how exactly this came about, but the IDF has to answer to the taxpayers and international law, so it doesn't just throw wads of (expensive) ordnance at things that aren't at least perceived to be a threat. This being said, I have two questions:
- Why did the UN not pull them out of there?
- Why did the IDF not co-ordinate with the observers to do so?
I can probably answer the first question. The UN is worse than useless when things go balls-up, so I can easily see them failing to do anything except complain until somebody gets killed, and then express outrage at the fact that (whatever bad thing) happened.
The next question is a bit more difficult. They were obviously in radio contact, and if Hezbollah was sniping at the UN post and/or operating close to it, the reasonable (under the circumstances) course of action would be to launch an aggressive rescue mission, bagging some jihadist sheisskopfs in the bargain.
Is the IDF really that lazy/cowardly that they won't do such a thing these days? I hope not, or the only progressive democracy in the area is doomed. Avoiding the huge Hezbollah public-relations windfall resulting from this idiocy alone would have made it worth it. To show themselves co-operating with the UN to rescue some unarmed observers would have had some much-needed good publicity for the Israelis, and saved the lives of those observers who should have been protected by SOMEBODY.
The UN has no business anymore with troops, because it's proved over and over again that it has no clue how to use and if need be protect them. The IDF needs a kick in the ass to smarten it up, as the "optics" of what it's doing are not great for the results achieved.
The IDF may be hurting Hezbollah (however it's spelled), but it's not making any new friends, and may be alienating people it has some common cause with (read: Lebanese Christians). And the bottom line, it's not hurting the terrorist wankers terminally, so think hard and think fast, because it's not going to get any easier if shit like this keeps happening.
Saturday 22 July 2006
Like I said...
Israeli ambassador says Louise Arbour doesn't get it
He says his country is attacking legitimate Hezbollah military targets and she should be careful with her language.
"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says. CBC news 21 July 06
A representative of the UN yapping off politically with no balanced appraisal of the situation? I simply can't believe it! Oh wait, maybe I can. I don't agree with everything our American allies do, but I can say I can see where they were coming from when they didn't want to pay their UN dues.
The UN is approaching the uselessness of the old League of Nations unless you count endless hot air as a useful output. Those parts of the UN that do some good work could be spun off as more NGOs (not that I think we need more of those) and the assembly just plain dissolved. The Security Council would persist in some fashion even without the UN proper, but I can't see France and Britain maintaining anything like a veto unless allied with one of the current superpowers. Hell, France had no place there in 1945; I seem to remember them as losing that war and being liberated by the rest of us...
The world is just plain buggered, but I have enough history to know it's always been like that. The fact that people can't get along doesn't surprise me at all, but the muddle-headedness about how to manage it (notice I didn't say "fix") is unsettling. There are a load of people who need to read (and UNDERSTAND) their Machiavelli and Sun-tsu, then take a fresh look around them at what's going on, and then maybe open their mouths again.
In the fight against trans-national Islamic terrorism, it's US vs THEM and nobody who has an interest in progress, relative personal liberty and any kind of human rights must realize that. However, I certainly won't say that nobody can criticize how things get done, because I have a lot of opinions myself about short-sighted foreign policy and the like.
For example, I actually think the Americans have run into more trouble from not being ruthless enough than from blowing up the odd mosque. If they dropped a 2000lb bomb on EVERY mosque that militants were using to stage attacks or store weapons, I think it would get the point across very effectively. Again I can turn to Kipling who understood the concept.
He says his country is attacking legitimate Hezbollah military targets and she should be careful with her language.
"I completely reject Louise Arbour's warning. Israel doesn't target civilian concentrations, and I think that by merely giving such a warning she's jumping to conclusions and as a judge she should know better," he says. CBC news 21 July 06
A representative of the UN yapping off politically with no balanced appraisal of the situation? I simply can't believe it! Oh wait, maybe I can. I don't agree with everything our American allies do, but I can say I can see where they were coming from when they didn't want to pay their UN dues.
The UN is approaching the uselessness of the old League of Nations unless you count endless hot air as a useful output. Those parts of the UN that do some good work could be spun off as more NGOs (not that I think we need more of those) and the assembly just plain dissolved. The Security Council would persist in some fashion even without the UN proper, but I can't see France and Britain maintaining anything like a veto unless allied with one of the current superpowers. Hell, France had no place there in 1945; I seem to remember them as losing that war and being liberated by the rest of us...
The world is just plain buggered, but I have enough history to know it's always been like that. The fact that people can't get along doesn't surprise me at all, but the muddle-headedness about how to manage it (notice I didn't say "fix") is unsettling. There are a load of people who need to read (and UNDERSTAND) their Machiavelli and Sun-tsu, then take a fresh look around them at what's going on, and then maybe open their mouths again.
In the fight against trans-national Islamic terrorism, it's US vs THEM and nobody who has an interest in progress, relative personal liberty and any kind of human rights must realize that. However, I certainly won't say that nobody can criticize how things get done, because I have a lot of opinions myself about short-sighted foreign policy and the like.
For example, I actually think the Americans have run into more trouble from not being ruthless enough than from blowing up the odd mosque. If they dropped a 2000lb bomb on EVERY mosque that militants were using to stage attacks or store weapons, I think it would get the point across very effectively. Again I can turn to Kipling who understood the concept.
Of course you can't always break heads to deal with things (I'm not a sociopath, just a frustrated realist) but when "jaw-jaw" doesn't do the job, it's time for "war-war", with my apologies to the late Sir Winston Churchill for stepping on his lines.
Thursday 20 July 2006
This Day in History...
Oh yes, and today is the 62nd anniversay of the incomptent attempt to assasinate Hitler in 1944. http://www.answers.com/topic/july-20-plot
Bloody amateurs muffed it, which shows the advantage of suicide bombers for certain jobs. If von Stauffenberg had been willing to sacrifice himself, he could have done the business, but he was no fanatic, and so we had to use the forces of the great powers for another 10 months to drive the crazy bastard to ground.
In the end Hitler managed to prove one thing; if you want a job done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself...
Bloody amateurs muffed it, which shows the advantage of suicide bombers for certain jobs. If von Stauffenberg had been willing to sacrifice himself, he could have done the business, but he was no fanatic, and so we had to use the forces of the great powers for another 10 months to drive the crazy bastard to ground.
In the end Hitler managed to prove one thing; if you want a job done right, sometimes you have to do it yourself...
Congestive (Bleeding) Heart Disease
Another sign of why Western civilization is doomed to be wiped out, this is from the head (?) war crimes judge in The Hague (all quotes from CBC News 20 July 06):
Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour said the scale of killings in the region could involve war crimes.
"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities," said Arbour in a statement Wednesday.
"This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. …The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."
Well, wake up everyone. They’re bloody TERRORISTS, and they hide in amoungst the people on PURPOSE to get yahoos like this to gob off about collateral damage. Score political points that way, they do. Also, I really doubt the Israelis are going to give a honk about the fine points of international law when they`re under attack, as they are now.
And this bit of genius from the WHO and UNICEF:
"The psychological impact is serious, as people, including children, have witnessed the death or injury of loved ones and destruction of their homes and communities," the organizations said in a joint statement.
Again, it’s a war, people, and it’s not like Lebanon isn’t already traumatized. These same people probably would send in those ghoulish `grief counsellors` that seem to have sprung up like weeds in the last 20 years. If they need 20 of them for a car accident at a High School, how many would they send to Lebanon? Or Iraq, or DR Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, ad infinitum.
Personally I think Israel is at least giving the impression of punishing the Lebanese people even if that’s not the intent of the exercise. I’m certain that making life difficult for the civilians is an unavoidable consequence of fighting this sort of enemy, but neither I nor the various news media outlets have the sort of intel required to say whether the Israelis are doing a lot more damage than necessary.
Radar can track incoming artillery or rockets, and you can be damned sure that a lot of the strikes that take out houses and that sort of thing are a result of tracing back the launch points of those Hezbollah Katushas and hammering it. The people in those houses may not have directly helped launch them, but a people get the government they deserve.
What that means, is that if Lebanon tolerates as part of its government an organization that is devoted to the destruction of a heavily armed and (justifiably) paranoid neighbour, well this is exactly what will happen. I will argue that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and it has engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel is effectively at war with Lebanon. Looked at from that perspective, Israel has been fairly restrained.
As always, just my opinion.
Meanwhile, UN human rights chief Louise Arbour said the scale of killings in the region could involve war crimes.
"International humanitarian law is clear on the supreme obligation to protect civilians during hostilities," said Arbour in a statement Wednesday.
"This obligation is also expressed in international criminal law, which defines war crimes and crimes against humanity. …The scale of the killings in the region, and their predictability, could engage the personal criminal responsibility of those involved, particularly those in a position of command and control."
Well, wake up everyone. They’re bloody TERRORISTS, and they hide in amoungst the people on PURPOSE to get yahoos like this to gob off about collateral damage. Score political points that way, they do. Also, I really doubt the Israelis are going to give a honk about the fine points of international law when they`re under attack, as they are now.
And this bit of genius from the WHO and UNICEF:
"The psychological impact is serious, as people, including children, have witnessed the death or injury of loved ones and destruction of their homes and communities," the organizations said in a joint statement.
Again, it’s a war, people, and it’s not like Lebanon isn’t already traumatized. These same people probably would send in those ghoulish `grief counsellors` that seem to have sprung up like weeds in the last 20 years. If they need 20 of them for a car accident at a High School, how many would they send to Lebanon? Or Iraq, or DR Congo, Rwanda, Sudan, ad infinitum.
Personally I think Israel is at least giving the impression of punishing the Lebanese people even if that’s not the intent of the exercise. I’m certain that making life difficult for the civilians is an unavoidable consequence of fighting this sort of enemy, but neither I nor the various news media outlets have the sort of intel required to say whether the Israelis are doing a lot more damage than necessary.
Radar can track incoming artillery or rockets, and you can be damned sure that a lot of the strikes that take out houses and that sort of thing are a result of tracing back the launch points of those Hezbollah Katushas and hammering it. The people in those houses may not have directly helped launch them, but a people get the government they deserve.
What that means, is that if Lebanon tolerates as part of its government an organization that is devoted to the destruction of a heavily armed and (justifiably) paranoid neighbour, well this is exactly what will happen. I will argue that since Hezbollah is part of the Lebanese government, and it has engaged in acts of war against Israel, Israel is effectively at war with Lebanon. Looked at from that perspective, Israel has been fairly restrained.
As always, just my opinion.
Tuesday 18 July 2006
All This From a Jehova's Witness...
Mickey Spillane, creator of the hardboiled detective Mike Hammer, died in South Carolina on Monday. He was 88.
He sold more than 100 million books, and Hammer inspired several TV series and movies. ... His books featured raw violence and sex, drawing condemnation from morality groups of the day. But they sold hugely, with lurid paperback covers often featuring a scantily dressed woman and a gun. CBC/AP
As a committed (ha!) agnostic, I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'm always happy when people believe stuff and leave the rest of us alone about it. Spillane by all appearances did so, and should therefore (according to me, anyway) either rest peacefully or have a good time in whatever afterlife he may have believed in.
I'm not a big fan of his stuff, though I like my share of "pulps" but I do like people who entertain without beating me over the head with some not-so-hidden agenda.
For example, I used to think Angelina Jolie was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Well, I still think she looks good, but her relentless do-gooding has actually made her less appealing to me. In the interim, her place at the top of my notional "list" has been taken by Scarlett Johansson, because she's hot (and one of the few actresses in Hollywood who isn't a stick, but that's another rant) and whatever pet causes she has have yet to impinge on my blissful ignorance of anything other than that she looks good and seems to have a brain too. How's that for a run-on sentence?
He sold more than 100 million books, and Hammer inspired several TV series and movies. ... His books featured raw violence and sex, drawing condemnation from morality groups of the day. But they sold hugely, with lurid paperback covers often featuring a scantily dressed woman and a gun. CBC/AP
As a committed (ha!) agnostic, I'm not a fan of organized religion, but I'm always happy when people believe stuff and leave the rest of us alone about it. Spillane by all appearances did so, and should therefore (according to me, anyway) either rest peacefully or have a good time in whatever afterlife he may have believed in.
I'm not a big fan of his stuff, though I like my share of "pulps" but I do like people who entertain without beating me over the head with some not-so-hidden agenda.
For example, I used to think Angelina Jolie was the hottest thing since sliced bread. Well, I still think she looks good, but her relentless do-gooding has actually made her less appealing to me. In the interim, her place at the top of my notional "list" has been taken by Scarlett Johansson, because she's hot (and one of the few actresses in Hollywood who isn't a stick, but that's another rant) and whatever pet causes she has have yet to impinge on my blissful ignorance of anything other than that she looks good and seems to have a brain too. How's that for a run-on sentence?
That's all for now, but off that whole mid-east debacle at least.
Monday 17 July 2006
"Hot Topic" is NOT Punk Rock
At 35+ my bleeding-edge days are long behind me, but as a former punk-ska-industrial-alternative scene guy I certainly haven't moved to the Michael Boulton catalogue. Today's subject line comes courtesy of MC Lars:
http://www.mclars.com , and I couldn't agree more.
I must confess that before a few months ago (I've re-posted this from earlier) I'd never heard of him or Hot Topic, but once again thank you, Internet, for instant familiarity with almost anything. Back "in the day" my friends (well, some of them) and I went out to the gigs, listened to the music, wore the clothes and hung out with the other punks, which made me one of them, even if I was never a "smash the state" kind of guy.
At that point in my life (roughly age 17 to 22) I was in school, by 19 I had moved out of the house, and I was pretty poor. The ripped jeans were just old and worn out, the punk t-shirts were cool, but mainly cheap, and the 14-hole Docs and leather jacket were a legacy from the motorcycle that I never managed to get running. Like real punk bands, things were run on a shoestring, but by necessity and not as some sort of slumming affectation.
I won't (presently) bore everyone with tales of the old days, but I'll put it out here that I blame MTV/Much Music and Nirvana for the commercialization and concurrent extinction of the alternative scene as a real alternative. I haven't paid a lot of attention for a number of years, but the fact that I can find a site ( http://www.hottopic.com/) selling, well look at what they're selling and ask yourself if the word "Punk" should be associated with US$20.00 t-shirts and baby clothes.
Probably not the last word on this topic...
Who ever said violence never solved anything?
"Palestinian militants halt strategy of IDF abductions to secure prisoners
MOHAMMED NAJIB JDW Correspondent
Ramallah
Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank have suspended their new strategy to abduct Israel Defence Force (IDF) personnel to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails, Palestinian militant sources told Jane's on 13 July.
The sources said the abductions would be suspended until the resolution of the IDF operation in Lebanon.
The sources added they were concerned that the capture of additional IDF personnel could result in an unprecedented military response that would destroy the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority."
See? As I've maintained in the past, (stolen fron wherever) you can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs. Hezbollah has more places to hide than Hamas, otherwise they'd likely be saying "uncle" by now too.
It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and in a way I'm encouraged by Hamas taking a step back, though admittedly they did it only after getting their asses handed to them again. However, the Israeli response in Gaza must pale in comparision to the steel flying downrange in Lebanon, and they must see how much worse it could be, and their supporters can too.
What this could mean, (optimistic, I know) is that Hamas has a sliver of rationalality to them as an organization, and from that there could eventually be some kind of arrangement made. Again, not likely, as the entire situation is the zero-sum thing I mentioned earlier.
The only real solution is an ethnic-cleansing type, and that's never popular with the losing side, nor (when they actually pay any attention) the international community. I should see if there are bets being taken on the next move (other than the stock markets), as I`m curious about, say, the odds on Israel attacking Syria, for example.
On va voir...
MOHAMMED NAJIB JDW Correspondent
Ramallah
Palestinian militant groups in the West Bank have suspended their new strategy to abduct Israel Defence Force (IDF) personnel to secure the release of Palestinian prisoners detained in Israeli jails, Palestinian militant sources told Jane's on 13 July.
The sources said the abductions would be suspended until the resolution of the IDF operation in Lebanon.
The sources added they were concerned that the capture of additional IDF personnel could result in an unprecedented military response that would destroy the Hamas-led Palestinian Authority."
See? As I've maintained in the past, (stolen fron wherever) you can't make an omellete without breaking a few eggs. Hezbollah has more places to hide than Hamas, otherwise they'd likely be saying "uncle" by now too.
It comes down to a cost-benefit analysis, and in a way I'm encouraged by Hamas taking a step back, though admittedly they did it only after getting their asses handed to them again. However, the Israeli response in Gaza must pale in comparision to the steel flying downrange in Lebanon, and they must see how much worse it could be, and their supporters can too.
What this could mean, (optimistic, I know) is that Hamas has a sliver of rationalality to them as an organization, and from that there could eventually be some kind of arrangement made. Again, not likely, as the entire situation is the zero-sum thing I mentioned earlier.
The only real solution is an ethnic-cleansing type, and that's never popular with the losing side, nor (when they actually pay any attention) the international community. I should see if there are bets being taken on the next move (other than the stock markets), as I`m curious about, say, the odds on Israel attacking Syria, for example.
On va voir...
Saturday 15 July 2006
We all gotta duck, When the shit hits the fan.
(Before we start, 10 Punk Points to whoever can recognize the source of the title to this one.)
Ok, This was on my other blog a couple of days back, but things haven't moved much since then, but that could change any time... I'll take bets right now as to if/when Israel invades or otherwise provokes a war with Syria.
Taking this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178492.stm as the start point, I can see some geopolitical possibilities and rationale for the next "hot" Mideast war.
The Yanks have been talking for many years now about Syria as a major terrorist sponsor state, and there can be no doubt that along with Iran, they are a major conduit for various terrorist groups and the arms therefore that are playing hob with American and Israeli plans/ideas for the mid east. From there it's not a big step to see Israel buggering Syria badly enough to force some sort of regime change, at the very least.
I've been reading a sampling of mid east blogs, specifically from Egypt and Lebanon, and there's an interesting undercurrent to the expected outrage at the latest Crusader-Zionist outrages in Lebanon and Gaza. To see where I've been looking go here : http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This guy has a quite an atypical outlook for the region, so I'd certainly keep that in mind when reading his stuff and his fellow travelers in the region. That said, the fact that anyone over there is doing anything other than just screaming "Kill the Jews", yadda, yadda, is encouraging to me. However, moderates are vastly outnumbered, more so because by definition the hotheads are willing to crack other heads that don't agree with them, and not a lot of people will speak up in that environment.
Back to the main event. The Americans are too tied up to take out Assad in Syria, let alone deal appropriately with the Iranian government. The Israelis however, have the resources, the motivation, AND the tacit backing of said Americans to to the former job for them, and if they could I'm sure they'd like a crack at Iran too.
So, will Israel continue to bomb the hell out of Lebanon to put the pressure on Hezbollah, or will they, as one of the Lebanese bloggers said, pick on someone their own size, and send the troops knocking on Bashar al-Assad's door?
Damned if I know for sure, but I have my opinions on what should be done. They involve a fight to the finish, and although I'm reluctant to take sides in a messy situation like Israel/Palestine, if I had to see either side come out on top, I'll take the progressive democracy any day.
Ok, This was on my other blog a couple of days back, but things haven't moved much since then, but that could change any time... I'll take bets right now as to if/when Israel invades or otherwise provokes a war with Syria.
Taking this: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/5178492.stm as the start point, I can see some geopolitical possibilities and rationale for the next "hot" Mideast war.
The Yanks have been talking for many years now about Syria as a major terrorist sponsor state, and there can be no doubt that along with Iran, they are a major conduit for various terrorist groups and the arms therefore that are playing hob with American and Israeli plans/ideas for the mid east. From there it's not a big step to see Israel buggering Syria badly enough to force some sort of regime change, at the very least.
I've been reading a sampling of mid east blogs, specifically from Egypt and Lebanon, and there's an interesting undercurrent to the expected outrage at the latest Crusader-Zionist outrages in Lebanon and Gaza. To see where I've been looking go here : http://www.sandmonkey.org/
This guy has a quite an atypical outlook for the region, so I'd certainly keep that in mind when reading his stuff and his fellow travelers in the region. That said, the fact that anyone over there is doing anything other than just screaming "Kill the Jews", yadda, yadda, is encouraging to me. However, moderates are vastly outnumbered, more so because by definition the hotheads are willing to crack other heads that don't agree with them, and not a lot of people will speak up in that environment.
Back to the main event. The Americans are too tied up to take out Assad in Syria, let alone deal appropriately with the Iranian government. The Israelis however, have the resources, the motivation, AND the tacit backing of said Americans to to the former job for them, and if they could I'm sure they'd like a crack at Iran too.
So, will Israel continue to bomb the hell out of Lebanon to put the pressure on Hezbollah, or will they, as one of the Lebanese bloggers said, pick on someone their own size, and send the troops knocking on Bashar al-Assad's door?
Damned if I know for sure, but I have my opinions on what should be done. They involve a fight to the finish, and although I'm reluctant to take sides in a messy situation like Israel/Palestine, if I had to see either side come out on top, I'll take the progressive democracy any day.
Plus ca change...
Well, with my initial experiment on the MSN blog thing a partial success I thought I'd move over here. I have a job where I'm not supposed to comment on some things, but I feel like doing it anyway, so a bit more anonymity won't hurt.
Of course, I'm not operating in high security mode, or I wouldn't be putting ANYTHING in public. I just like to rant, and if I can't do that at work, well I'm going to do it somewhere...
That said, if anyone figures out (or knows 'cause I told them!) who I am and/or who I work for (it won't be hard) anything said here is MY OPINION ONLY and in no way represents anyone or anything other than me personally. A lot of it is just me running off at the mouth, and I've had all sorts of ideas over the years that I know a lot better than to try and implement.
I'll move a few of my back posts over here to save me some work (I have other things to do than troll the net, after all) and you can see what I have going on. When you figure it out, please tell me, as I have no detailed plan for this at all.
One thing that will be apparent by the time you get here is that yes, I am a big Kipling fan, particularly his verse. His output was huge and very diverse, and with his range of life experiences and exposures, he has something to say about almost everything, especially if you can "adjust for inflation". For the namesake of my space go here . I can draw a lot of parallels from it to our (Western Civilization's) current "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I leave it to the alert reader to make up their own mind, as always.
Of course, I'm not operating in high security mode, or I wouldn't be putting ANYTHING in public. I just like to rant, and if I can't do that at work, well I'm going to do it somewhere...
That said, if anyone figures out (or knows 'cause I told them!) who I am and/or who I work for (it won't be hard) anything said here is MY OPINION ONLY and in no way represents anyone or anything other than me personally. A lot of it is just me running off at the mouth, and I've had all sorts of ideas over the years that I know a lot better than to try and implement.
I'll move a few of my back posts over here to save me some work (I have other things to do than troll the net, after all) and you can see what I have going on. When you figure it out, please tell me, as I have no detailed plan for this at all.
One thing that will be apparent by the time you get here is that yes, I am a big Kipling fan, particularly his verse. His output was huge and very diverse, and with his range of life experiences and exposures, he has something to say about almost everything, especially if you can "adjust for inflation". For the namesake of my space go here . I can draw a lot of parallels from it to our (Western Civilization's) current "War on Terror" in Afghanistan and Iraq, but I leave it to the alert reader to make up their own mind, as always.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)