Author: wiseprince

Originally Posted at Voices in the Wilderness

Russia and Georgia have found themselves in military conflict for 3 or 4 days now and there does not seem to be any let up despite calls by The United States and the European powers (demands without weapons in the real world does little to change facts on the ground). The conflict will not stop until Russia has achieved its goal but the real question is what is the end state for Russia?
Oil
Needless to say money an oil, in today’s crude driven world, goes hand in hand.
The BTC pipeline carries crude oil from the Caspian Sea to the Mediterranean Sea. It connects Azerbaijan, Georgia and the Ceyhan port. I am short on time so won’t go through two much detail but strategically speaking Russia would love to control this major crude pipeline as well as the South Caucasus Gas Pipeline running parallel to it. Simple enough goal the implementation of this plan is, of course, a diplomatic tight rope. There would be nothing better for Russia than to have a pro-Kremlin leadership which may be why their public policy seems to be shifting towards regime change as Mikhail Saakashvili is far to pro-western (what with his daily CNN interviews and all).

Power
NATO has shown a willingness to have Georgia to be a new member of the alliance but of course Georgia is of little help to NATO without a real army able to defend and protect the member states of the alliance. As a result Georgia has been building up its military as a prerequisite to its acceptance into NATO. Needless to say Russia views this in the context of the so called “Red” revolution and the “Orange” revolution (Political coups orchestrated by Washington, as far as Russia is concerned) and sees the membership of a border state as another way to surround Russia with enemies (similar to the scheme vise a vie Iran). For those familiar with the tenants of NATO it is clear that this type of action by Russia after Georgia was an official member would bring about the full weight of NATO forces (which essentially means Military conflict with the United States) and no one wants that. By taken action now they give both the Europeans and the United States an out, a reason not to intervene (I’m sure the Western powers are grateful). Military action against a neighboring state will give NATO pause when discussing missile defense with Poland, Ukraine and the like (which was one of the major sticking points with the Bush administration).

All in all I would score this a win for Russia as they have shown that they are not against escalation if the right buttons are pushed. This forces the Western powers not to push as many buttons as they have been over the past 4-6 years. As with Ukraine, Russia has an opposition to work with in Georgia. It will be interesting to see whether or not they have more political capital after the invasion.

One benefit that may play out for the United States is more support at home for the Missile Defense System Bush has been pushing for 8 years. Fortunately or unfortunately though, I highly doubt Bush has enough political capital left on the home front to get anything done. Furthermore, the host countries may listen a little more closely when Russia warns against it

Certainly I am not so prescient as to be the only person in this world to know the exact solution to the war in Iraq. I think it’s been clear for some time and if troop surge policies continue to be the path taken by the United States government, in particular the Bush administration, it will become the only solution that can lead to a victory in Iraq (in terms of American interest). The quick answer is a Secular Sunni dictator supported by the United States government, and I will explain why.

Voices in the Wilderness
Currently in Iraq one thing seems certain, the United States government has no leverage over the Shia government because quite honestly the Shia government is in no need of the United States. There is no doubt that they don’t mind usurping the billions of dollars a month that the U.S is providing their government but in many ways the Americans have become a barrier in the way of vengeance. Moreover, the Shiite controlled government has strong ties to the Iranians who would no doubt see it in their best interest to supply and empower the status quo government in Iraq (or some slight variation thereof).

As against the war as I am it is difficult to call for an immediate withdrawal in Iraq (certainly many Americans selfishly disagree) because of the inevitable outcome. It happened in Afghanistan, it happened in Rwanda and it will happen in Iraq if the Americans do not handcuff the Shiite government: Genocide.  It is a pillar of collapse of evil, colonial policies. Governments support minorities in order to “protect” them from the strong arm of Majorities (particularly when the majorities are against the occupying forces). These policies, brutal though they maybe, have a tendency to work, in the eyes of the occupiers, in as long as the support of the occupying force or colonial powers remains strong.  Should the support dwindle then the majority is in a position to take back what is theirs and more; they usually do, and by force. This is in part what the world is witnessing in Iraq and it will get worst once the Americans leave. I have written before about the regional war that will start if there is a true, full out civil war in Iraq. Americans are in no position to leave. Bush is right, as hard as that is to believe, leaving now will make matters worst.

The answer to an American victory in Iraqi lies with the leverage they can hold over the Sunnis. The guaranteed protection against the Shia’s, the arming of a Sunni controlled army and the weakening of Iran’s influence among the Iraqi elite is gained only through a Sunni dictator whose sole way of survival is his American support. Sunnis have much more to gain from America than do the Shias and the Americans have much more in common with the Sunnis Secularist in Iraq (former Saddam loyalist) than they do with Islamic theocrats.  Iran will play its hands now because they realize that the relationship they share with Iraq is far greater than America’s relationship with Iraq. With a Sunnis government in Iraq armed to the teeth Iran dare not support the Shias, particularly with the Sauds, and Jordan all hell bent on preventing Iran from gaining a stranglehold on the region. The pieces are their and the solution, which proved the correct solution for 25+ years will work if implemented and the shift will happen in short order. With one sure swoop the United States can ensure superiority in the region, having virtual control over four governments in the region (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Egypt) who survive solely on the basis of American support.  These governments can all be armed without fear of turning coats (as long as the American, “Democracy in the Middle East” policy is dropped). The consequences of true democracy in the Middle East do not fit the true American interest because of the inevitable clash with fundamentalist (who have proven to be much more organized than so called, “reformist”).

If the policy above (condensed for sure) is enacted I will point out the hypocrisy of the United States every step of the way. I will oppose such a policy and I will not condemn those who actively fight against such a policy. That being said, that is the only solution in Iraq that serves American interest in the region.

Interestingly enough that solution was in place before the war began. Billions of dollars, thousands of American soldiers, tens, if not hundreds of thousands of Iraqi souls only to find out that Saddam Hussein was the solution for Iraq. America will have to find another Sunni dictator, a little less Anti American than Saddam became in the latter years

Originally Posted @ Voices in the Wilderness

If nuclear technology is clean and desired in the United States, Canada and other industrialized nations there should be an understanding that Western cultures are not the only nations that have a responsibility to the environment and to their local populations, national security and economic growth. The entire debate over Iran’s nuclear energy program has been framed by the leaders of the world as solely a nuclear weapons debate and very little has been made of the constant claims and seeming validations of independent bodies that Iran’s nuclear program is for energy use. Without the filter of the mainstream media it isn’t hard to argue that Iran is being a responsible citizen of the world by trying to use a cleaner source of energy.  I will write, for the most part, with the assumption for now that Iran is indeed trying to develop nuclear plants to supply their energy needs
The United States has built itself into a world superpower and has built its economy primarily on crude and coal. SUVs, Heating appliances, refrigerators and air conditioners; essentially all of the things we use on a day to day basis that drastically facilitates the lives of the citizens of an industrial nation needs some sort of energy source.  Western civilization has been greatly blessed because of our access and efficiency with oil and coal but in the 21st century we are really starting to see the effects that our lifestyle has on the environment in which we live and the limitations of the economy that we have built. As long as the West was the only consumer of oil it would continue to grow its economy and increase its sway in the world and with world affairs. What now seems like problems that should have been seen years, even decades ago are now however catching us by surprise. The rest of the world also feels the need to have the finer things in life; they also feel that their citizenry should have air conditioning when it’s deadly hot outside or heating when it is freezing. Although these developments came very quickly mainly due to the rapid growth of India and China it is a development that the Western world should have been more prepared for. In any event, the lessons of the failures of the U.S economy is one that has been learned by some countries, Iran being one of them.

All of the benefits that we in this part of the world find with alternative energy sources apply for Iran. Nuclear technology is cleaner and having the knowledge within your borders is necessary to avoid future complications such as bribery or sanctions (as Iran knows all too well). There are no shortage of people who will point out that Iran has huge oil reserves and is in no need of nuclear energy to supply it’s demands. That may seem true on the face of it but that will eventually lead Iran to a sickening dependence on a commodity that does not appear to be unlimited, that fluctuates in price depending on the economies of other sovereign nations that is unhealthy for the environment and that it uses as a major source of income. There is no rule, and the United States politicians don’t seem to acknowledge this, that forces a nation state to run through all of its oil reserves prior to developing an alternative source.  Secondly, Iran has nowhere near the amount of refineries that is needed to support a growing, more industrialized economy; this fact is evident by the amount of natural gas that it is importing. Many pundits have made much of the fact that sanctions will be most effective on Iran if it focused on its imports of gas. Therefore, it shouldn’t be at all a surprise to the world that Iran doesn’t want to be susceptible to such blackmail in the future.

Growing Economy
The goal of a government is multifaceted and top among the list is to keep their populous safe from outside invaders trying to overthrow or destabilize their country (security) and to ensure that the livelihood of its citizenry can improve; the latter encompasses new innovative ideas that can eventually provide jobs and as a consequence improve the economy. As a governmental body you have an obligation to assess the effects a growing and or a changing economy, that is to say people with more or less disposable income, will have on the currently functioning system of government and develop a framework to ensure that the changes to the status quo class system will not have a destabilizing effect on the nation. As an example suppose that an additional 10% of the Canadian population became unemployed. The government would have to adjust it’s projected debt because of the new strain that is sure to be put on employment insurance as well as the negative effect on business’ that depend on a certain percentage of the population who’s disposable income allows for a certain amount of entertainment purchases. With the new projected debt numbers the government will be able to implement new policies to deal with new realities. These policies may include cutting certain social programs, raising or lowering taxes on a segment of population and other policies to limit the effect that the change will have on the greater populous.  The sooner the government can detect problems the easier the changes will be to the citizens of the country. In the above example, if the government were able to detect a coming downturn in certain sections of the economy they could have implemented policies to avoid the worst case scenario and the changes could be more gradual and thus less of a shock on the nation. The idea that the government does not have the obligation to identify potential problems before they are moments away from a catastrophic catastrophe is why so many of Western nations find themselves grossly dependent on an energy source that is scarce and undependable. The Iranian government has identified a problem, a growing population a younger more technologically savvy demographic and their desire to become more modern, and a highly valued and coveted natural resource that is, between its borders, in abundance. Because this commodity, crude oil, is in such high demands the government of Iran relies heavily on its ability to feed the addiction of the world to grow its economy.  Having identified the problem the government has certain well-defined choices. Following the pattern of Western powers it can continue to search for more of the commodity between its borders and around the world to quench the thirst of its population; refuse to modernize and accommodate the changes that are hugely desired and popular in its country or find new ways to increase its ability to accommodate the new reality of industrialization without stifling its ability to supply the ever increasing demand for its commodity by other industrialized nations. Giving these options with the knowledge of the Western experience the choice is simple, a new innovative way to supply its countries needs.  

Other Energy Sources
The claim that Iran does not need anymore energy than it already has brings a lot of attention to Iran’s pursuit of a nuclear energy program but little if anything has been said of Iran’s seemingly broader plan to become fully energy independent and well diversified.  Iran’s energy diversification program doesn’t stop at nuclear power. They are also well on their way to developing other power plants (with much less fan fair by external powers) such as a Solar power plant in Shiraz.

Greenhouse gases are not only a concern in the west by Western scientist:

Concern over the anthropogenic Greenhouse Gas Build-up in the atmosphere resulted in increased  iThe  consistent  interest  of The Islamic Republic of Iran in CSP is documented through
actions already initiated in the early 1990’s.In 1992 the German Federal Minister for the
Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety  of  the  Federal  Republic  of
Germany and the Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed a “Memorandum
of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in the Field of the Environment” in Tehran.
To follow-up, Iranian and German experts organized the “First  German-Iranian Seminar
on Solar Thermal Power Plants” in September 1993 in Tehran,sponsored by the Energy
Ministry and the Electric Power Research Center.nterest  in  Renewable  Energy  Technology.  Due  to  its  rapidly  increasing
population and the urgent need for increasing the Production of  Electricity awareness in
The  Islamic  Republic  of  Iran, the renewable energy technology including Solar Energy
have gained momentum in the Iranian industrial sector.

<snip>
The  consistent  interest  of The Islamic Republic of Iran in CSP is documented through
actions already initiated in the early 1990’s.In 1992 the German Federal Minister for the
Environment,  Nature  Conservation  and  Nuclear  Safety  of  the  Federal  Republic  of
Germany and the Vice President of the Islamic Republic of Iran signed a “Memorandum
of Understanding Concerning Cooperation in the Field of the Environment” in Tehran.
To follow-up, Iranian and German experts organized the “First  German-Iranian Seminar
on Solar Thermal Power Plants” in September 1993 in Tehran,sponsored by the Energy
Ministry and the Electric Power Research Center.

Source

Why hasn’t the entire energy strategy of Iran been a topic open for debate and discussion in Western media outlets? I suspect it’s because Wind Farms don’t do much to help the case for war. Iran’s Wind Farm Launched

Maybe if the United States had such a broad plan to supply its citizenry with energy they wouldn’t have to send soldiers to Iraq and sell the Iraqi people’s oil without metering it and  “misplace” billions of dollars of American and Iraqi Wealth

Blessing in Disguise?
Much has been made by Bush administration dissenters that the United States has not bought into the idea that climate change is real and human beings are the cause. If the administration did buy into the idea Americans would certainly have to place restrictions on energy producing industries as well as push for greater funding of alternative sources of energy.  This would have two major effects on the United States and the world as a whole. The first, and among many the most desired, is the positive effect, so say the scientist, cleaner sources of energy would have on the environment. Some argue that Hurricanes would become more powerful and happen more frequently and yet others point to the increase of breathing sicknesses of our children such as asthma. If these are in fact true then there is much to be gained by going clean. The second effect, and least discussed, is the benefit to the global economy. A lot of companies are heavily reliant on oil and gas and as a result the bottom line is negatively affected when the price of oil takes an upward trend to the extremes.  Without getting into too much of the details of pricing it must be understood that among other things the basic rules of supply and demand are at work. As India, China and other developing nations becomes more and more dependant the cost of oil will continue to rise. We have, in recent years, seen the same thing happen to steel and other metals that are in high demand because of the industrialization of many nations.  It is a major problem for the United States because all of the major developing countries are building an American styled economy, that is to say an economy based around crude. China has in recent weeks and months been signing new deals with Venezuela (who has claimed that by 2009 its sales of oil to China will triple) and Iran who has no ties with the United States government. Some pressure has been taking off the United States government with the recent victory of the Conservatives in Canada who are less inclined to move themselves away from dependence on American consumption of Canadian commodities but it is not something that the U.S government should use to develop an energy plan (unless Harper’s Conservatives can win a majority).  If nothing more the Bush administration has recognized the need to slow the demand of developing nations for crude (in addition to trying to secure its own supply in the Middle East albeit in a less friendly manner than the Chinese government). The mainstream media picked up on a story earlier in the year about the Bush administrations offer to supply India with nuclear technology. Unfortunately, in typical mass media style they completely missed why the offer was relevant to the lives of everyday people. More was said about the fact that the U.S government received mangoes in return. The more relevant benefit to the United States was the inevitable affect that a more crude-independent India would have on global oil supplies. If they are using nuclear energy they are not relying on crude and that is a major consumer taken off the market (obviously not completely). I cannot say for sure but for some reason the Republican constituency in the United States is not much of a fan of having nuclear plants in the United States (It’s possible that the administration doesn’t care what Americans actually want) but giving nuclear technology to other consuming nations has similar (surely not all) of the benefits in a flat world as it would have if a plant were built locally. The bottom line is that the Administration understands the benefits of having other nations create the energy independent economy that the United States never had the knowledge to create when they were building their economy. Therefore, the Bush administration also understand that if Iran goes with alternative sources of energy they will be yet another country that is not competing with the United States for oil, and all the nations that Iran is inevitably going to transfer knowledge to will also be energy  independent (see Indonesia and Venezuela).

Why Worry?
If the United States of America understands the benefits of nuclear independent nations one must ask why they fear an energy independent Iran. The one word answer is influence. If there remains major consumers of oil, which is to say major competitors in of a crude driven economy, and there will be (See China and more than likely India) then there will be an alternative to American hegemony. As mentioned before Chavez is already looking at ways to cut his nation off of dependence of American consumption and there is no telling how far his “Latin Revolution” will go to isolate the United States of America (Could it spread to Mexico?). If Chavez’s Venezuela is not dependent on the United States then the U.S has no leverage with his government and Venezuela can, as Iran will be able to, continue to make huge profits on exports of oil while using nuclear, solar and wind energy to power up locally. This pattern ensures that the riches of Oil filled nations will continue to grow (by feeding the addiction of crude centered economies) while its citizenry continues to industrialize. No harm is done to its greatest export and their in house knowledge can also become a source of revenue through knowledge transfers (Educating the population will obviously be key for this pattern to be successful at the end of it all). Hostile, Rich and capable of exporting the anti American ideology is what this pattern will produce and the United States sees that as a huge threat to the security and continued prosperity of the nation. Why the United States has, over the past 6 years, actively taken steps to produce the current situation is a topic for another day.

Working with the presumption of innocence it is hard to concluded, without doubt, that Iran is developing nuclear weapons (See IAEA reports). Objectively speaking there should be no doubt that Iran is developing its country and putting itself in a position to take independent positions on world issues without having threats of sanctions constantly leveled against it (and if they are brought up they won’t have a hugely negative effect on its citizenry). If the United States continues to aggravate oil rich nations they will turn to other consumers (a luxury that is only recent in its reality) and force future American administration to wrestle with the same issues the Bush administration has been wrestling with, “Who should be bomb and when?”. If American citizens do not want to be involved in endless wars until there is no more money in the non-defense budget they will have to force their government to moderate their relations with countries who don’t subscribe to American hegemony lest history sees American’s as nothing more than the latest Goliath who fell at the first act of courage he faced.

Unto Christ be the glory of the church throughout all ages; World without end.

 Amen

See Also
Iranian Response: Destabalize & Conquer
Why Iran Has The Right To Nuclear Technology
Nuclear Standoff: How NOT to Negotiate

Originally Posted @ Voices in the Wilderness

Israel has managed to take its war against the Lebanese people to a new level. The attack on Qana was deplorable and inexcusable and even under these circumstances the United States of America (The supposed impartial broker for peace) still refuses to condemn Israel’s actions even at the most basic level. Israel’s supporters throughout the world continue to use the defense that Hizb’Allah is targeting civilians and to the contrary the Israeli Defense Force (IDF) does not purposely and methodically target civilians. Any government or any world leader who accepts this claim at face value after nearly 20 days of bombing, hundreds of Lebanese civilian death and hundreds of thousands of displaced Lebanese citizens has no right leading a people, period.
What can <u>WE</u&gt do?

The United States spends in excess of $3 billion (USD) a year in its support of the Israeli government and when Israel uses the American produced and American financed weaponry the United States government for some unexplainable reason feels no personal responsibility for the actions of the Israeli government when they collectively punish a people and more specifically bomb apartment buildings filled with women, children and the elderly; filled with innocent civilians. With that type of support to Isarel’s government the United States, the Bush administration, has a very heavy hand they can use on Israel to force a ceasefire yet the mainstream media continually priaises the administration for their “efforts” to broker a ceasefire when they know as well as any viewer that for the past two weeks there has been an effort by the United States government to ensure that there was no ceasefire until Israel can “root out the Hizb’Allah militia” (a riduclous notion considering how much apart of Lebanon Hizb’Allah truly is).

Thankfully today the Lebanese government has taken a firm stance against the United States’ unapologetic support for Israeli aggression by refusing to allow Secretary of State Condelezza Rice to use their nation and the peoples government as nothing more than another photo opportunity to be used to show the conservative base in America how hard the Bush administration is working to broker a peace when in actuality United States remains the single greatest obstacle to a ceasefire.

Unworkable Ceasefire?

The idea that Hizb’Allah will not hold to the ceasefire may not seem outrageous on the face of the argument but the reality of the matter is that it is a bold faced lie. Firstly, if Hizb’Allah wanted a ceasefire only so that they can re-supply, they certainly wouldn’t be in any hurry for a ceasefire right now nor would they be willing even consider a ceasefire at this time. Unfortunately for the United States the facts on the ground are, as they seem to do a lot to this particular American administration, flying in the face of the United States’ argument. Hizb’Allah has given the Lebanese government full authority to negotiate a ceasefire on behalf of Hizb’Allah and the Lebanese people and they have even gone as far as showing signs of supporting the seven point plan that the Lebanese Prime Minster presented to the international community in Rome.  British officials were confident enough in Hizb’Allah’s wiliness to agree to a ceasefire that they suggested earlier in the week that a UN ceasefire resolution could come as early as Monday or Tuesday of this week but these estimations can most likely be written off after these latest attacks on the Lebanese people by Israel (one wonders if that was the plan).

Implementing 1559

It should be understood that in its efforts to help the Lebanese government implement resolution 1559 Hizb’Allah had agreed to target only military outlets and installations and had kept to that policy up to the time that Israel started bombing Beirut.

Hizb’Allah’s actions were unnecessary and irresponsible, though not unprovoked as claimed by Israel and its supporters, but they were in accordance with their policy to attack only military installations inside Israel. While the agreement by Hizb’Allah (prior to the start of this war) may seem to Israel and its supporters as nothing more than the parsing of words it demonstrates two very important facts: Lebanon was trying to implement resolution 1559 and Hizb’Allah is willing to negotiate the implementation of 1559. The problem with the rhetoric by the international community (The United States & Israel in particular) is they have framed the debate of the disarming of Hizb’Allah as Hizb’Allah versus the Lebanese government, further stirring the pot by suggesting even demanding that the Lebanese government order the Lebanese army to disarm Hizb’Allah by force. The obvious conclusion to the debate when it is framed in this manner is that the Lebanese army doesn’t have the resources or the military capability to disarm Hizb’Allah. Israel has used that fact to unilaterally declare itself the implementer of the resolution (not unlike what the United States has done in Iraq). The framing of the debate of the implementation of resolution 1559 as requiring a military solution boxes the Lebanese government into a corner; they either order the army to disarm Hizb’Allah (which will inevitably cause the military to fraction and most probably start a civil war) or they allow foreigners to implement the resolution in the form of Israeli bombardments or an international force with a mandate to kill Lebanese heroes (The Hizb’Allah militia which drove Israel out Lebanon).  Consequently the latter solution is a good recipe for a separatist movement to evolve.

It seems as if nothing has been learned from the debacle in Iraq (Military v Militia in a fragile and fractured nations leads to civil war). The Lebanese government was on a much more sensible path to disarm Hizb’Allah than Israel’s unilateral bombardment of all of Lebanon.

State Terrorism

Israel and its supporters have constantly made the distinction between the IDF and Hizb’Allah, Hamas and other like groups by insisting that the latter groups specifically target civilians while the IDF targets only “terrorist” and any civilian death’s are collateral damage which they regret. The reality is that this distinction means absolutely nothing even if it were provable (which it isn’t).  Between the bombing of the UN outpost, the bombing of ambulances, buses filled with civilians trying to flee bombardment (after being told by the IDF to flee) and now the bombing of women and children in an apartment building Israel might do better by targeting civilians and having terrorist killed by collateral damage; the numbers would, under these conditions, prove more favorable for both Israel and Lebanese civilians. Israel’s countless apologies and assurances that the Lebanese people are their friends and not their enemies is like a rapist telling his victims how much he loves them while still in the act of raping them. Simply because Israel is telling the world that they are not targeting civilians it doesn’t make it true.

Israel would no doubt want the world to judge them on their words and not their actions but when watching children being buried underground on a daily basis conscionable people have no choice but to condemn Israel; neither is it unjust to call Israel a terrorist state especially since these bombardments of civilians have become the norm rather than the exception.

At the end of the day Israel’s “goodness” has been based more on PR than on facts  and that Hizb’Allah unwillingness to negotiate is pure propaganda that the mainstream media has largely bought into. The facts more closely resemble the arguments of those who would say that far from Hizb’Allah being the obstacle to a ceasefire it is the United States of America’s blanket support and the American’s medias championing of Israel’s “restraint” that is truly the biggest obstacle to a ceasefire.

The PR wars continue

May God bless and protect the Lebanese and Israeli civilians who would rather their governments talk than fight

Amen

Originally Posted @ Voices In The Wilderness

Israel is showing the entire world why its critics are absolutely right in suggesting that they have become a destabilizing force in the region. I will be clear that I don’t agree with Hezbollah’s actions although I completely understand their logic. That being said that does not give Israel the right to bomb all of Lebanon mercilessly.

I have been hearing the lies for weeks now, “Any sovereign country would do the same”. WRONG. Russia has twice been hit with vicious attacks on their civilian population by Chechen rebels groups but under Vladimir Putin (The so called anti democratic leader of Russia) the Chechen people have not been punished because of the acts of a few.  If ever there were justification for a massive response it was following the Chechen rebels attack on the elementary school in Beslan. Just as a ferocious response may have been Russia showed how a truly responsible nation should respond. They were patient, the used covert operations to get the perpetrators and were recently rewarded for their efforts after killing the groups’ leader. A massive bombardment could have no doubt been carried out by the Russian government but again they did what Israel claims to be doing now, restrained themselves. Israel is said to be a democracy and to listen to western media Russia is a ruthless autocratic dictatorship yet somehow the ruthless dictatorship showed far more care for human life than did the, “flourishing democracy”.

Not many years before that horrendous attack was the attack on a Russian theatre and again Chechen rebels murdered Russian civilians; though Russia’s handling of the situation was far from perfect they again proved to be a true world leader by restraining from collectively punishing the Chechen people.

Indonesia was bombed by Al-Qaeda and they arrested the perpetrators of the criminal act they did not unilaterally invade Pakistan and bomb their civilian population and infrastructure. There are literally hundreds of examples of nations being attacked without responding by instantly and unilaterally attacking a sovereign nation. Why then is the Bush administration and the Canadian government constantly repeating the same chorus, “Any sovereign nation would do the same thing”.

Absolutely wrong!

To my mind Israel is not different than a terrorist organization; no better than Hezbollah and no better than Al-Qaeda.

The Right Response
If Israel were truly a peaceful nation they would not have responded with bombs and other military apparatus but they would have applied pressure on the Lebanese government (which currently has the support of Washington) through Washington. Because of their recent democratic elections Lebanon has in place a government that would have been much more likely than in the past to work with Washington (maybe even Israel) to get the soldiers returned safely. Certainly it would have been a long and frustrating process but I find anyone who would argue for a military solution over a long and drawn out diplomatic solution as unwise at the core. Interestingly enough had this happened prior to the Gaza situation the response could have been much more measured without having to worry about looking weak. Putting Gaza under siege, then having Hezbollah capture 2 soldiers without responding would have made Israel look like they were unable to fight wars on multiple fronts. In essence, the Gaza offensive backed Israel into a corner (in the eyes of Israeli leaders) and as usual their leaders were not wise enough to react in a manner that would have made them look strong yet controlled (in either case quite frankly).

Iran and Syria
The western media has been beating the drums of war with Iran so it shouldn’t be a surprise that without verifying any of Israel’s claims that the missiles were Iranian missiles or that the soldiers are being transported to Iran they report it as fact.  Irrespective of my contempt for the propaganda spreading American media the truth is Iran and Syria both support Hezbollah and Hamas and while the missiles may not have been Iranian missiles, Hezbollah is most probably being financed by Iran and to a lesser extent Syria.

Does this make these nations supporters of terrorist?
I see no difference between Iran’s support of Hezbollah and Hamas in the form of finances and even arms and The United States’ financial support of Israel (to the tune of 3 billion dollars a year) and their arming Israel to the utmost. There is however a perceived difference mainly due to how western media, the United States in particular, covers the two perspectives. I have yet to hear one American media outlet condemn any of Israel’s actions (From the bombing at the beach to the destruction of critical civilian infrastructure in Gaza) yet Hezbollah is time and time again referred to as a radical Islamist terrorist group. CNN even goes as far as emphasizing Hezbollah’s attacks on the U.S embassy 20 years ago (Without ever mentioning the reasons for the attacks).

Start of a greater war
This may or may not prove to be the start of something big and memorable for all the wrong reasons. Prior to the First World War there were many alliances made and treaties signed ensuring that if one nation were attacked the other nation would join the battle. It has been the simple response for decades to suggest that Germany and Germany alone started WWI (after all they signed the treaty of Versailles) but the truth is that they were not the only country invading and colonizing at the time, they were just the last. It seems quite fair to suggest that we are living in similar times; times of treaties and alliances, defense guarantees and nationalism. This could be the start of another war to end all wars but as I said, it may not be.
The Kosovo conflict of the 90’s proved that their can be civilization wars that don’t end up sparking world wars. The difference in this situation is that Israel is much more likely to attack Syria or Iran than Bosnians, Serbs or Croats were to attack Russia or the United States. The key to avoiding a world war in this situation is as it was in the Kosovo Conflict, keep the civilization leaders as supporters and sponsors and allow the proxies to do the dirty work otherwise we will be thrust into another world war.

It’s sad that it comes to this. I abhor the governments of this world.

God Bless

Originally Posted @ Voices In The Wilderness

As the world begins its efforts to come up with a statement at the United Nations their hypocrisy continues to be quite evident. The new resolve of the world to condemn North Korea was brought about by the recent missile tests of the DPRK yet Israel has, for the past 11 or 12 days, been in the process of testing missiles on Palestinian people and infrastructure and not even the weakest of statements condemning their actions has come out from the collective world body.
With impunity the Israelis invade the land of a people and proceed to collectively punish each and every Palestinian in Gaza in order to secure the safe release of their soldier. The current count is 35 dead Palestinians 1 dead Israeli soldier and 1 captured, well fed, well taken care of Israeli soldier. Do not consider my assessment to be at all bias as the Israeli government themselves have confirmed that a Palestinian doctor has looked after the soldier and he is, after all the heavy handed force by the Israeli military, still alive.

I think it is worth mentioning that though Kim Jong Il is upsetting the world with his missile test (short range and long range missiles) it is the Israeli government and military that is in violation of international law by collectively punishing an entire population for the actions of a few militants. It is safe to suggest that Israel will face no punishment, no threat of sanctions, no words of condemnation from the majority of nations in the “internationally community”, specifically the worlds only super power, the United States of America, which has to date only been able to thank Israel for its restraint and tout their right to defend themselves.

Regional Response

It’s easy to point the finger at Western support for Israel’s ability to continuously violate international law but the truth is that regional governments bear just as much if not more of the blame. No regional government, save Iran, has spoken out in the defense of the Palestinian people; none have threatened to cut off ties, trade relations or any other punitive measures in response to these horrific actions.

In addition to condemning the actions of the Israeli government, region wide sanctions must be imposed on Israel by nations such as Jordan & Egypt who have direct dealings with the Israeli government. Moreover, It is hard to imagine that the Iranian government cannot come up with some measures to twist the arms of western nations to, at the very least, speak out against Israel’s actions.

Egypt, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, Libya and Iran should all consider trying to convince the Hamas led Palestinian authority to give control of all militants to the elected government as a pre-condition to fully arming the Palestinians to defend themselves of these incursions in the future.

Would such actions be seen as supporting terrorism?

Simple response to any claims that arming the Palestinians is supporting terrorism cannot and should not be taken seriously by any government who arms Israel and gives 3 billion dollars of tax payer dollars to the Israeli cause year after year irrespective of their governments’ decisions to close their eyes to international law. If Israel is going to continue to bomb Palestinian infrastructure (including water purification systems & electrical grids) with impunity the Palestinians certainly have the right to defend themselves against this. Let me make this clear, I support and advocate non violence under every circumstance (including this one) but I am not willing to condemn any Palestinian or supporter of the Palestinian people who take violent actions in response to what Israel is doing right now. It is a fully understandable (though regrettable) response.

Contrary to the government of Canada I fully and unabashedly condemn Israel for their response to the captured soldier crises and I call on all supporters of truth and righteousness to likewise condemn these actions.

Prayers and blessings of the Lord Jesus Christ be with all of my Palestinian brothers and sisters and all of my Israeli brothers and sisters who have found shame in the actions of the Israeli government. The day will come when such actions will receive the response from the Lord that they deserve.

God Bless

Originally posted at Voices In The Wilderness

The United States of America has truly become a paper tiger and their threats to shoot down a North Korean missile test makes that evident but even more evident is there inability to negotiate with two members of the “axis of evil” from a position of strength irrespective of the fact that they have one of them, Iran, completely surrounded with American soldiers & allies and the other, North Korea, under heavy sanctions.

It was laughable if not sad that when the North Korean President is threatening the worlds only super power with weapons test the only response of the so called super power is a threat of sanctions (which North Korea has long since endured).

Even more telling is the entire Iranian nuclear standoff. For those unfamiliar with what has actually happened over the past 3 or 4 years I will give a quick rundown.

The Iranians unilaterally decided to suspend enrichment and allow snap inspections while the European Union put together an incentive package that aimed to convince Tehran that nuclear technology was not in the best interest of their country. Iran was at this time adamant that the United States give security assurances but Washington refused to, under these circumstances even talk with Iran (This comes into play later). When the EU3, France, Germany & Britain, finally gave their “incentive (or bribery) package” Iran essentially laughed it off and pulled out of the Paris agreement (that was only ever put in place as a confidence building exercise until the package was offered). The United States and the EU3 during this time consistently skewed the reality and convinced their respective majorities that the truth was that Iran was bound to these agreements and by pulling out they were somehow in violation of the NPT (Though the IAEA refused to confirm that). From there the western coalition managed to garner support for the United Nations Security Counsel (UNSC) to get involved. The members of the UNSC eventually agreed upon a very weak statement that called on Iran to stop Enrichment and once again allow spot inspections (The additional NPT protocol). Iran, knowing that the so called International Community had no real legal leg to stand on not only ignored the request but sped up the process and made some timely breakthroughs.

The “international community” at this point tried to bring much tougher language to Iran, even going as far as threatening sanctions if they fail to comply but neither Russia nor China was willing to sign-on to anything that threatened sanctions or military action. The double minded “International Community” then decided to offer Iran another package under the condition that Iran halt any enrichment and implement the additional protocol; adding that the United States would now be willing to, under those circumstances, join discussions with Iran (EXACTLY where this started except now Iran has a better package and they are surely farther along with their nuclear program).

The catch here is that Iran must first stop enrichment and secondly re-implement the protocols. This is a horrible suggestion and whoever suggested it should be dismissed immediately. Consider this; the end goal of the international community is for Iran to stop enrichment and implement the additional NPT protocol. If Iran agrees to this can someone please tell me what The United States and Iran will negotiate as Iran will have already conceded everything.

The EU3 & the United States of American have shown that in terms of negotiating skills they are among the worst. I suppose it is relevant to add that there have also been reports the United States has offered Iran nuclear technology as apart of the package.

To listen to the mainstream media these days it would be difficult to believe that the above is what has actually happened but it is much more accurate (though not complete) than what the media has been feeding the populous of late.

This being the case the lesson that should be learned is simple:

Ladies & Gentleman, THIS is the perfect example of how NOT to negotiate.

Cross posted @ Voices in the Wilderness

Western nations fight wars because other countries don’t agree with the freehand of capitalism. How ironic is it to hear the members of the nations who most adamantly promote capitalism complaining when capitalism is at work.

Much more below the fold
If tomorrow morning gas prices were to spike to $15 dollars per liter I would not consider it price gouging. If the market cannot support $15 dollar gas then energy companies could not sustain growth and thus prices would come down in order to promote buying. As long as people continue buying gas the market will rise. This is how a free market works (for those of you familiar with the concept of supply and demand). It is the role of the company (energy companies included) to make as much money as they possibly can. They do not have to answer to consumers; they must answer only to their shareholders.

Do I think this is fair and just? No, but this is capitalism. This is how I know that propaganda works wonders. The same people fighting energy companies over ‘price gouging’ will shout, “pinko commie!” to those who advocate a more fair and balanced system under the name of socialism or communism.

The truth is, Americans, Canadians and other `capitalist’ nations want socialism, even if they disguise this desire under a new name. Medicare/Healthcare for all is not a pure capitalist concept. Neither is it the ideology of capitalism to advocate governmental control over gas companies. `Controlling spam’ on the internet certainly does not leave much room for free market cooperate creativity yet millions of `capitalist’ want the heads of those who proliferate and justify spam.

Hugo Chavez, for example, has been coined a threat to democracy because he is spending billions of dollars from oil revenue to subsidize anti-poverty programs in Venezuela and other Latin-American countries (ironically the very same sorts of anti-poverty programs advocated by millions of capitalist around the world).

Those who fight socialism abroad and demand it at home are either grossly unjust, ignorant or among them who have falling to governmental spin.

Stop complaining about gas prices. Remember that the market is at work. Any price that you and your colleagues around the globe are not willing to pay will not be they price for very long. The buying power of the consumer in a capitalist system is, from time to time, their ability to, “not buy”.  

As always, sounds great on paper and works in theory but as millions of people are finding out, allowing the free market to work its magic isn’t always the solution. If this is true for capitalist loving nations why won’t they allow it to be so for socialist and communist nations without the threat of economic sanctions or military strikes?

Just a thought

Ahmadinejad has said some rather harsh things in regards to Israel but as with much in the Middle East their is a clear double standard in terms of how the international community interprets the words of Israel and the United States versus how the words of the Iranians and Hamas, for example, are interpreted.

Cross Posted @ Voices in the Wilderness
Some of the more publicized threats/sayings of Ahmadinejad:

• Whether you like it or not, the Zionist regime is on the road to being eliminated
• The Zionist regime is a dried up and rotten tree which will be annihilated with one storm
• Calling for Israel to be wiped off the map

Quotes

As for the first two statements they are clearly more observational than threatening; whether or not you agree with this perspective. The final quote has been used, in some quarters as justification for the worlds hawkish stance (though anyone following events of the negotiations are well aware that long before Ahmadinejad was known to the world the position of the world was hostile)
Truth be told there are many ways, in the current world framework, that Israel can be wiped off the map and not all of them require nuclear or other military strikes. Giving all the land back to the Palestinians for example is one method of wiping Israel off the map. A one state solution would just as likely `wipe Israel off of the map’.

It may be argued that to interpret such tough words in such a simple manner requires a large leap of faith, however, I can just as easily suggest that interpreting current events; Iran’s nuclear program and Ahmadinejad’s recent statements, as a direct threat to nuke Israel is equally ridiculous (and I would be right). To suggest that Iran, who has no history of aggressive wars, will develop nuclear weapons to strike Israel, simultaneously killing a large segment of the Palestinians they are supporting, defines a fairy tale land.

It’s also fair to point out that Iran isn’t without options in terms of military strikes on Israel at this very moment and yet, somehow, they have miraculously refrained from launching a pre-emptive strike on Israel or American forces inside of Iraq or Afghanistan. Logic dictates that the Iranians realize that such a move would equate to suicide for the Islamic Republic. One can thus hypothesize that the same forces that are holding Iran from attacking Israel with their stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons would continue given the status quo (which is to say they are not attacked). To assume that if Iran possessed one or even ten nuclear weapons they would suddenly feel bold enough to attack Israel who has 100 or Americans who have 10000 is absurd on its face.  Iranian quotes and statements are never interpreted with these facts.  Conversely, it is not outlandish to suggest that the Americans or the Israeli’s who have much more firepower than does Iran would launch pre-emptive strikes on a weaker, more isolated Iran. Even so, American and Israeli rhetoric has not drawn the international condemnation that has seemed appropriate in dealing with Iranian statements.

Well known to the world are Ahmadinejad’s recent statements but much less known, or rather much less reported, are the open, unapologetic threats that Israel has made towards Iran.

• His statements are reminiscent of those voiced by Saddam Hussein. Ahmadinejad will end up like Saddam Hussein
• Ahmadinejad represents Satan, not God

Anyone who was previously unaware of these statements has served me well in pointing out the double standard in terms of dealing with rhetoric.  Statements made must be understood in their context. In addition to statements on, “doing whatever it takes to ensure Iran doesn’t get the bomb” Israel purchases large amounts of bunker busters. While it is true that these statements are much more subtle than Iran’s statements they leave no less a hint of threat against Iran.

Because The United States is the world’s only superpower more people the world is familiar with the American statement, “Axis of Evil”, remains one of the most provocative phrases in recent history and there should be no doubt that such a classification was seen, and rightfully so, as a direct threat to its members.
More recently the United States has classified Iran as the greatest supporter of international terrorism and has even leaked information threatening a pre-emptive NUCLEAR strike on Iranian nuclear facilities. The thought of such attacks should have drawn international condemnation giving what we now know about the effects of subsequent radiation and the Bush administrations happy trigger finger.

These statements can and should be treated with much more seriousness that Ahmadinejad’s statements for the simple reason that the United States has a 60 year history of intervening in the affairs of foreign nations and has proved willing to act unilaterally in its military actions. The threats and rhetoric on both sides of the ocean are unhelpful and childish but for some reason this world is filled with respecters of persons, which is to say if you are a powerful nation you can get away with much more than a nation who hasn’t yet achieved equivalent prestige.  Between Israel’s bullish aggression on Palestinians, their pre-emptive strikes on Iraq, their in incursion into Lebanon, America’s 60 year history of meddling with foreign governments, coups and its most recent pre-emptive attack on a sovereign nations and Iran’s most recent childish language I would suggest that the latter is the least of the worlds worries.

America, Israel and Iran all have the ability to cause a lot of problems for a lot of people in the world and all three of them are acting like children. Like a parent the international community cannot pick sides. The lack of an honest broker in this matter serves only those who will to be the aggressors.

Condelezza Rice seems to think that a civil war in Iraq will spawn more civil wars throughout the region because, goes her theory, Al Qaeda wants that type of unrest to further its goals. On its face this scenario is scary but Rice gives no explanation on how such conclusions were reached (which isn’t an oddity in modern politics and with this administration in particular).  Other pundits however have expressed similar concerns but in the real world sound bites do not a policy make and blaming Al-Qaeda for everything and assuming all things run though Al-Qaeda in the Middle East is simply not the case.

As usual
Originally Posted at Voices In The Wilderness

All Welcomed to join
We can all breathes a sigh of relief knowing that the middle East will not explode into a series of civil wars. There really is no support for that wild eyed idea. Shia Minorities in Saudi Arabia will not take up arms simply because Sunnis and Shias in Iraq cannot find common grounds on how to best distribute oil resources. This is not to say that the Middle East will not be a very fluid environment should civil war brake out in Iraq (For the record I don’t see that possibility as being a foregone conclusion). Should we see a civil war in Iraq it should be clear to anyone on the outside that the Sunnis have no chance of victory without outside aide (Interestingly enough a similar reality brought Saddam Hussein into power and ultimately sustained his power). Saudi Arabia is worried that a Shiite dominated Iraq with close ties to Iran could spark unrest among its Shiite minority as well as embolden the Iraq-Iran coalition to force major chances in the Saudi Kingdom.  Signs of this possibility were seen following the January election in Iraq

For the first time in 70 years, the Shiites of eastern Saudi Arabia, the only part of the kingdom where they are a majority, are preparing to win a small measure of political power. Inspired by the Shiites’ success in Iraq’s elections, Shiite leaders here say they intend to sweep to victory in municipal voting scheduled for Thursday and begin using the authority of elective office to push for equal rights. The voting also will likely result in at least some Shiite representation on two nearby councils.

The prospect of even incremental Shiite political gain has alarmed Sunni Muslim leaders across the Middle East, who fear that long-suppressed Shiite communities such as this one astride the kingdom’s lifeblood oil industry will push for an ever-greater role in government. Sunni heads of state have warned the Bush administration that the democratic reform it is encouraging in Iraq and Saudi Arabia could result in a unified “crescent” of Shiite political power stretching from here through Lebanon, Iraq and into Iran.

emphasis mine

Article

Needless to say this will be fought tooth and nail by the Sauds primarily through funding, military expertise, training and safe havens for the Sunni resistance in Iraq. The Bathist regime in Syria may conceivably be strong supporters of the Iran friendly Shiites in Iraq (contrary to the American administrations claim that they are currently funding the Iraqi resistance) and the Turks, which may be the exception in terms of military intervention, will no doubt play a major role in quelling the Kurds in the North who will no doubt try to destabilize Turkey.  What we have therefore is a major conflict among Muslim sects in Iraq; each sect will have their backing from one or more nation states. Shiites will be supported by Iran and possibly Syria, Sunnis will be supported by Saudi Arabia and the stateless Kurds will have the support of militias in Turkey which will consequently force Turkey to respond with tremendous force as is their practice. The wild card in this situation truly is the, “Coalition of the willing”. Under normal circumstances a nation who has no kin link to the primary participants in the civil war would not be involved but because of the American and western interest in the region they will be forced to finance one side or the other. The Bush administration has said little of its plan to deal with the outbreak of a civil war, and one can easily make the claim based solely on precedence that there is no plan, but it hard to imagine western nations supporting the Iranian backed Shiites who already have the upper hand in terms of numbers and military might. Having said that Bush’s most recent statements draw pause:

…
VARGAS: What is the policy if, in fact, a civil war should break out or the sectarian violence continues? Are you willing to sacrifice American lives to get the Sunnis and the Shiites to stop killing each other?

BUSH:
…
The presence of the U.S. troops is there to protect as many Iraqis as we possibly can from thugs and violence, but it’s also to help the Iraqis protect themselves, and we’re making progress in terms of standing up to these Iraqi troops so they can deal with, deal with these incidents of violence.

VARGAS: But what is the plan if the sectarian violence continues? I mean, do the U.S. troops take a larger role? Do they step in more actively to stop the violence?
BUSH: No. The troops are chasing down terrorists. They’re protecting themselves and protecting the people, and — but a major function is to train the Iraqis so they can do the work. I mean the ultimate success in Iraq — and I believe we’re going to be successful — is for the Iraqi citizens to continue to demand unity.
Emphasis Mine

Complete Transcript

I am not sure if this is policy or just another George W. misspeak but training the Iraqi military which (and I don’t have the numbers) are most probably run and controlled by Shiites in a civil is a HUGE mistake and horrifically shortsighted.

Admittedly the above is just one scenario that can be played out. Syria being a Sunnis state could just as easily decide to fund the Sunnis resistance though given the current strategic pacts they have with Iran I see this as unlikely at least on any large scale. The idea, however, remains unchanged. Civil war in Iraq will be nothing less than a fight for the leadership of the Islamic civilization.

Islam is probably the largest civilization in the world without a core state and if they are to be a major player in the world they will eventually need to crown a core state for the civilization and a civil war in Iraq will play a major role in finalizing the hegemony structure of the Islamic world. Although Sunni Muslims vastly outnumber Shiites in the Islamic world I think that will play little if any role of the final decision of whom the core state of the civilization will ultimately be.

Samuel P. Huntington outlined the need for a core state for Islam in his book, “Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order”, and he ruled out the Saudi Arabia because

Its relatively small population and geographical vulnerability make it dependent on the West for its security.

Just as relevant today was his dismissal of Pakistan as a potential core State

…
Pakistan has size, population, and military prowess, and its leaders have fairly consistently tried to claim a role as a promoter of cooperation among Islamic states and the speaker for Islam to the rest of the world. Pakistan is, however, relatively poor and suffers serious internal ethnic and regional divisions, a record of political instability, and a fixation on the problem of its security vis-à-vis India, which accounts in large part for its interest in developing close relations with other Islamic countries, as well as non-Muslim powers like China and the United States.
p. 178

Huntington explored the possibility that Turkey could become the core state of the Islamic world however this remains a distant dream unless Turkey decides to de-westernize and abandon its not deeply rooted history of secularism. While Islam has become more relevant to Turkey’s political affairs it remains a nation far to secular, at the moment, to be considered for the role of Islam’s core state.

Iran was ruled out because of the fact that they remain a minority in terms of the culture and the religious sect, Persian and Shia respectively. I would suggest that should Iran successfully defend the Shiites in Iraq, possibly in spite of the western funded Sunnis (in addition to the funding that Saudi Arabia will no doubt give them) there is a good chance that they will have not only the obvious military advantage in the heart of the Islamic world but good strategic positioning ironically enough because of American intervention in two nation states that were previously known to be hostile towards Iran (Taliban and Saddam led Iraq).

Iran has not held back the fact that they want to lead a worldwide Islamic revolution and the first step to that end is uniting the Islamic world. Civil war in Iraq may be the solution to that centuries long impasse.