Gray Davis
Circle I Limbo
Riceboys
Circle II Whirling in a Dark & Stormy Wind
The Pope
Circle III Mud, Rain, Cold, Hail & Snow
Oakland Raider Fans
Circle IV Rolling Weights
Objectivists
Circle V Stuck in Mud, Mangled
River Styx
Scientologists
Circle VI Buried for Eternity
River Phlegyas
PETA Members
Circle VII Burning Sands
Bill Gates, Militant Vegans
Circle IIX Immersed in Excrement
George Bush
Circle IX Frozen in Ice
posted by Gino at
8:23 PM
Thursday, March 27, 2003
Not many posts lately, but with the war on and all I have had a thought or two
What if the 911 attack happened next Monday
O.K. now we are dealing with the 331 attack
Three airplanes are flown into targets, two the trade towers, one the Pentagon.
The Pentagon A military target, no question there.
The World Trade Center contained many government offices in previous wars the U.S. targeted the government buildings of other countries, or one could argue the U.S. has waged economic warfare for years against the entire world, and the world trade center is a target in that war.
Then theres the Hi-jacked airplanes, they are part of the civil reserve air fleet part of the US airforce. A legit target no doubt. I will take care when choosing an airline to fly on from now on.
These planes carry troops, and are not painted in military colors? Does that make them illegal participants?
I guess the moral is bomb not less you be bombed, or something to that effect
What if the 911 attack happened next Monday
O.K. now we are dealing with the 331 attack
Three airplanes are flown into targets, two the trade towers, one the Pentagon.
The Pentagon A military target, no question there.
The World Trade Center contained many government offices in previous wars the U.S. targeted the government buildings of other countries, or one could argue the U.S. has waged economic warfare for years against the entire world, and the world trade center is a target in that war.
Then theres the Hi-jacked airplanes, they are part of the civil reserve air fleet part of the US airforce. A legit target no doubt. I will take care when choosing an airline to fly on from now on.
These planes carry troops, and are not painted in military colors? Does that make them illegal participants?
I guess the moral is bomb not less you be bombed, or something to that effect
posted by Gino at
11:17 AM
Friday, January 24, 2003
Last night Don and I were discussing the neverending Palestine / Israel situation
Don avocated the ideas of Michael Moore as a solution and challaged me to disprove his ideas. Michael Moore, for those who don't know is the very left wing creative force behind movies such as Bowlingforcolumbine, Roger and Me, and the author of several books including the bestseller Stupid White Men.
A brief summary, of Mr Moores solutions to the Palestinian issue as follows:
1) The Palestinians should give up suicide bombings and turn to peaceful protest as a means to draw attention and support to
their cause.
2) Congress ( the guy is American ) gives Israel 30 days warning to make peace or they`re cut off. ( from Miltary and Economic aid )
3) Israel has one year to negotiate an operable state named Palestine (incl.
West Bank, Gaza, and a connecting strip of land. He`s silent on Jerusalem).
4) US gives Palestine double what it has been giving Israel, for a Marshall Plan
for economic development.
5) UN commits to defending Israel and Palestine both against any state seeking
to invade either. He implies that freedom and prosperity if enjoyed by the
Palesinians under this plan will spread democracy all over the region.
Don futher supported his postion with the following arguements:
" American support is the entire basis of the Israeli military... all
the money and equipment comes from the US. The "threat to maintain power"
argument is true of the current government, just as it is of the American
government. There are other politicians who would benefit from detente, so this
isn't an unchangable situation. And for the Jewish lobby question, well, the
big Jewish pockets in the States are already voting Democrat, and it didn't hurt
Bush any. He's likely worried more about Cubans than he is of Jews. "
This plan is very close to the one Jack Ryan champions in Tom Clancys Sum of all Fears.
This has been tried, in 1987 the Palestinians began the Intifada. This began peacefully, but turned to violence due to two factors.
1) The Palestians are not under a joint command, many factions exist and this fact has helped their survivial. But as with Northern Ireland it is very difficult to come to a collective peace agreement.
2) The Israeli " Iron Fist " policy, which which involved severe beatings (termed the “breaking of bones”), mass arrests and detentions, deportations, home demolitions, destruction of private property, and the use of live ammunition and rubber bullets.
The idea of cutting US aid to Israel has some merit, but little practical effect. Israel is a net exporter of weapons, this means they not only produce enough to arm themselves, they subidize these efforts by providing arms to countrys across the globe.
Cutting off Monetary aid would have an effect, but I believe it to be a negitive one. Israel will likely view it as a temporary set back, as the Americans have threatened and blocked aid in the past, then quietly reimposed it.
One of the biggest problems in dealing with this problem is the Americans. Many of their politicians are elected with money from the Jewish American political lobby. This ensures a voice at every level of government. Another problem is the inconsistant policy, any solution will have to have long term objectives in mind and the Americans tend to alter agreements at will, giving them little credibility as peacebrokers.
Mr Moore has the UN commit to defend the area from each other, the UN has a horrible recent history of trying to defend anyone. Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia just to name a few. I would not feel secure in their hands and neither will either side here.
It addition the UN is too political, it can and will renege on promises nearly as badly as the Americans.
What is the solution?
1. Remove the Americans from the area, they are a unstabilizing influence.
2. Establish Palestine to the 1967 borders, and declare Jerusalem an open city under UN administration.
3. The European Union provides a two division force ( with major attachments ) with the mandate of protecting Palestine.
4. Make it clear, if Israel crosses the line, Europe will make the Palestian fight their fight.
5. Rebuilding Palestine will provide major economic opportunitys, these will go to Europe, other MiddleEast neighbors, Asia, and the US in that order.
6. With a restored economy, say three to five years in the future. Palestine will build a military with European assistance.
7. As the Palesitians regain confidence in their own security, the Europeans will reduce their pressence, but the commitment to the defence of the Palestian state will remain.
Most American plans push security for Israel, but this is immaterial. They have one of the best militarys in the world, nuclear arms, and a massive industrial arms complex. They can defend themselves.
By providing for Palestian security, they can rebuild and start to think inward. With more resources, and without the Israelis destroying their police stations whenever an incident occurs, the Palestian Authority would finally have a fair shot to get things under control, and rebuild their country.
Don avocated the ideas of Michael Moore as a solution and challaged me to disprove his ideas. Michael Moore, for those who don't know is the very left wing creative force behind movies such as Bowlingforcolumbine, Roger and Me, and the author of several books including the bestseller Stupid White Men.
A brief summary, of Mr Moores solutions to the Palestinian issue as follows:
1) The Palestinians should give up suicide bombings and turn to peaceful protest as a means to draw attention and support to
their cause.
2) Congress ( the guy is American ) gives Israel 30 days warning to make peace or they`re cut off. ( from Miltary and Economic aid )
3) Israel has one year to negotiate an operable state named Palestine (incl.
West Bank, Gaza, and a connecting strip of land. He`s silent on Jerusalem).
4) US gives Palestine double what it has been giving Israel, for a Marshall Plan
for economic development.
5) UN commits to defending Israel and Palestine both against any state seeking
to invade either. He implies that freedom and prosperity if enjoyed by the
Palesinians under this plan will spread democracy all over the region.
Don futher supported his postion with the following arguements:
" American support is the entire basis of the Israeli military... all
the money and equipment comes from the US. The "threat to maintain power"
argument is true of the current government, just as it is of the American
government. There are other politicians who would benefit from detente, so this
isn't an unchangable situation. And for the Jewish lobby question, well, the
big Jewish pockets in the States are already voting Democrat, and it didn't hurt
Bush any. He's likely worried more about Cubans than he is of Jews. "
This plan is very close to the one Jack Ryan champions in Tom Clancys Sum of all Fears.
This has been tried, in 1987 the Palestinians began the Intifada. This began peacefully, but turned to violence due to two factors.
1) The Palestians are not under a joint command, many factions exist and this fact has helped their survivial. But as with Northern Ireland it is very difficult to come to a collective peace agreement.
2) The Israeli " Iron Fist " policy, which which involved severe beatings (termed the “breaking of bones”), mass arrests and detentions, deportations, home demolitions, destruction of private property, and the use of live ammunition and rubber bullets.
The idea of cutting US aid to Israel has some merit, but little practical effect. Israel is a net exporter of weapons, this means they not only produce enough to arm themselves, they subidize these efforts by providing arms to countrys across the globe.
Cutting off Monetary aid would have an effect, but I believe it to be a negitive one. Israel will likely view it as a temporary set back, as the Americans have threatened and blocked aid in the past, then quietly reimposed it.
One of the biggest problems in dealing with this problem is the Americans. Many of their politicians are elected with money from the Jewish American political lobby. This ensures a voice at every level of government. Another problem is the inconsistant policy, any solution will have to have long term objectives in mind and the Americans tend to alter agreements at will, giving them little credibility as peacebrokers.
Mr Moore has the UN commit to defend the area from each other, the UN has a horrible recent history of trying to defend anyone. Rwanda, Somalia, Bosnia just to name a few. I would not feel secure in their hands and neither will either side here.
It addition the UN is too political, it can and will renege on promises nearly as badly as the Americans.
What is the solution?
1. Remove the Americans from the area, they are a unstabilizing influence.
2. Establish Palestine to the 1967 borders, and declare Jerusalem an open city under UN administration.
3. The European Union provides a two division force ( with major attachments ) with the mandate of protecting Palestine.
4. Make it clear, if Israel crosses the line, Europe will make the Palestian fight their fight.
5. Rebuilding Palestine will provide major economic opportunitys, these will go to Europe, other MiddleEast neighbors, Asia, and the US in that order.
6. With a restored economy, say three to five years in the future. Palestine will build a military with European assistance.
7. As the Palesitians regain confidence in their own security, the Europeans will reduce their pressence, but the commitment to the defence of the Palestian state will remain.
Most American plans push security for Israel, but this is immaterial. They have one of the best militarys in the world, nuclear arms, and a massive industrial arms complex. They can defend themselves.
By providing for Palestian security, they can rebuild and start to think inward. With more resources, and without the Israelis destroying their police stations whenever an incident occurs, the Palestian Authority would finally have a fair shot to get things under control, and rebuild their country.
posted by Gino at
11:51 AM
Wednesday, January 22, 2003
What is in the future for NATO and the UN
With the growing opposition to American foriegn policy, many commentators have expressed opinions on the future role of NATO and the UN.
NATO was established to counter aggression from the Soviet Union, but now with the Soviet Union gone, and the US apparently taking over the role of aggressor, what will the result be?
With no major threat to the European continent, from a military viewpoint the Americans need NATO more than Europe.
With scrabbles over the International Court Treaty as well as resistance to NATO participation in a Iraq war one has to wonder whether or not the alliance has outlived its value.
Even the UN, as we await the inital report of the weapons inspection teams Monday, failing a " smoking gun " the security council will likely not approve any attack. As Mr.Bush has commited considerable resources to a pre- April attack, it is likely we will see the Americans go in unilaterally. If this occurs, the credibility of the security council will be in question.
End Result?
The Europeans may after a fashion consider NATO no longer viable, and decide to establish a military alliance within the EU. This would allow them to pursue common interests. This may lead to futher expansion, as Russia among others would jump at such an economic / military alliance.
Asian countries also concerned with the US may also choose to band together, lessening Americas influence abroad.
The UN would be forced to evolve, perhaps doing away with the Veto powers of the security council, and become less of an American policy tool than they have been in the past.
Maybe some good can come from this after all...
Go Dubya Go,
With the growing opposition to American foriegn policy, many commentators have expressed opinions on the future role of NATO and the UN.
NATO was established to counter aggression from the Soviet Union, but now with the Soviet Union gone, and the US apparently taking over the role of aggressor, what will the result be?
With no major threat to the European continent, from a military viewpoint the Americans need NATO more than Europe.
With scrabbles over the International Court Treaty as well as resistance to NATO participation in a Iraq war one has to wonder whether or not the alliance has outlived its value.
Even the UN, as we await the inital report of the weapons inspection teams Monday, failing a " smoking gun " the security council will likely not approve any attack. As Mr.Bush has commited considerable resources to a pre- April attack, it is likely we will see the Americans go in unilaterally. If this occurs, the credibility of the security council will be in question.
End Result?
The Europeans may after a fashion consider NATO no longer viable, and decide to establish a military alliance within the EU. This would allow them to pursue common interests. This may lead to futher expansion, as Russia among others would jump at such an economic / military alliance.
Asian countries also concerned with the US may also choose to band together, lessening Americas influence abroad.
The UN would be forced to evolve, perhaps doing away with the Veto powers of the security council, and become less of an American policy tool than they have been in the past.
Maybe some good can come from this after all...
Go Dubya Go,
posted by Gino at
3:51 PM
Welcome to Revoltutionary Analysis
I have started this page, on the suggestion of my friend Don, whose page I have enjoyed.
I hope this to become a place for discussion of foreign policy issues, for Canada and the world in general.
I will be fixing up this page as time permits.
I have started this page, on the suggestion of my friend Don, whose page I have enjoyed.
I hope this to become a place for discussion of foreign policy issues, for Canada and the world in general.
I will be fixing up this page as time permits.
posted by Gino at
12:00 AM
