As mentioned in the past, I try to avoid politics. However, the election of a new president can directly impact the war we are waging in Afghanistan and Iraq. Senator Obama has been compared with JFK in a number of ways. I can see why and I can also see how he DOES resemble the former president. They have many traits in common. This bothers me a great deal.
Senator Obama has used the Cuban missile crises as an example of how he would like to handle an emergency or crisis in his administration. The common perception is that JFK avoided a potential nuclear conflict with the Soviet Union by his handling of the crisis. I do not agree with this assessment. The Soviet leader turned his ships around after having been informed that they would be sunk if they continued on course. He wisely did so and the U.S. did not have to follow up on its threat. It is widely assumed that the U.S would have sunk the Soviet ships and by doing so could have possibly started a nuclear war. Today’s situation is naturally different.
It is unlikely that the Soviet Union (Or any other nuclear power) will place themselves into a position that is similar to the fall of 1962. What I believe is far more likely is that the U.S. will find itself in a similar position with a different kind of enemy. WHEN (It is only a matter of time) a terrorist organization obtains an effective weapon of mass destruction, do you believe that they will ‘turn the ships around’ and avoid a potential nuclear conflict?
I find a ‘yes’ answer so difficult to believe that a ‘no’ answer verges on certainty. The U.S would be forced to implement its threat, or else suffer the effect of an attack. From what he has said time and again, I believe that Senator Obama would NOT follow up on his threat unless his back was against the wall. (As JFK was during the cuban missile crisis.) Dealing with terrorism is not so clear-cut as dealing with other governments. Either way, any comparison that Senator Obama makes with himself and JFKs’ handling of the Cuban missile crisis is of grave concern to me.
Friday, May 30, 2008
Thursday, May 29, 2008
Katrina
Sorry, this is off topic. Because I lived in New Orleans from 1958 to 1966, I know a little that some do not.
In the fall of 1965, Hurricane Betsy flooded a sizeable portion of the city. The dykes had failed and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was called in for an assessment. The report that was issued said that the dyke system needed to be re-designed and re-built. Millions of dollars were allocated for the project by the Federal government. The work was not performed. I do not know if any of you are familiar with politics in Louisiana, but they make Cook County look like school children. A side note: Huey Long was from Louisiana and he was about as close to a dictator as this country has every come.
Anyway, the point is that not only did the local government not react well, which does not surprise me, but also they had been set up many years before because much of the work that could have prevented the disaster (Or at least contained it better) had been identified and had not implemented.
In the fall of 1965, Hurricane Betsy flooded a sizeable portion of the city. The dykes had failed and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers was called in for an assessment. The report that was issued said that the dyke system needed to be re-designed and re-built. Millions of dollars were allocated for the project by the Federal government. The work was not performed. I do not know if any of you are familiar with politics in Louisiana, but they make Cook County look like school children. A side note: Huey Long was from Louisiana and he was about as close to a dictator as this country has every come.
Anyway, the point is that not only did the local government not react well, which does not surprise me, but also they had been set up many years before because much of the work that could have prevented the disaster (Or at least contained it better) had been identified and had not implemented.
Wednesday, May 28, 2008
Strategy of defense
The Cold War strategy of playing good defense is being proposed today. One part of this is that by enforcing the rule of law and allowing for personal freedom, the ideology of our enemy may be broken. This strategy believes that the police should be the front line against terrorism in that when we do capture terrorists, they are treated like the criminals that they are instead of as POW’s. One comment I would like to make.
Please read about how well the police are doing in Afghanistan. Between suicide attackers and attacks with mortars and fully automatic weapons the police are not just hard pressed. They are losing more men in the battles than the attackers. Firepower favors the other side. Experience with suicide attack has shown that once the attack has been launched, the only way to make it unsuccessful is to literally blow them apart before they reach the objective. This requires firepower that the police of ANY country don’t possess. Nor do I want them to. A recent example:
The Chicago Tribune dated 5/28/08, Section 1 page 16. A tiny article titled "24 killed in Afghan bombings, attacks" "Roadside bombings and insurgent attacks Tuesday killed 24 people in Afghanistan, including 13 police officers, while U.S. led coalition operations killed several militants, officials said." More than ½ of those killed were police officers. I have seen a number of other examples like this one. The police only have a chance if they are armed with machine guns as well.
A close friend was returning home after the air travel ban was lifted a week after 9/11. He mentioned the National Guard was patrolling the airport, carrying automatic weapons. This is common in Israel today and has been for a number of years. Do we really want that here on a permanent basis in the U.S.?
To use a sports analogy, I prefer a good offense. Yes, a good tough defense is necessary to win championships. However, ALL championship teams have a good offense as well.
Please read about how well the police are doing in Afghanistan. Between suicide attackers and attacks with mortars and fully automatic weapons the police are not just hard pressed. They are losing more men in the battles than the attackers. Firepower favors the other side. Experience with suicide attack has shown that once the attack has been launched, the only way to make it unsuccessful is to literally blow them apart before they reach the objective. This requires firepower that the police of ANY country don’t possess. Nor do I want them to. A recent example:
The Chicago Tribune dated 5/28/08, Section 1 page 16. A tiny article titled "24 killed in Afghan bombings, attacks" "Roadside bombings and insurgent attacks Tuesday killed 24 people in Afghanistan, including 13 police officers, while U.S. led coalition operations killed several militants, officials said." More than ½ of those killed were police officers. I have seen a number of other examples like this one. The police only have a chance if they are armed with machine guns as well.
A close friend was returning home after the air travel ban was lifted a week after 9/11. He mentioned the National Guard was patrolling the airport, carrying automatic weapons. This is common in Israel today and has been for a number of years. Do we really want that here on a permanent basis in the U.S.?
To use a sports analogy, I prefer a good offense. Yes, a good tough defense is necessary to win championships. However, ALL championship teams have a good offense as well.
Tuesday, May 27, 2008
Muslims in prison
Some time ago, I had posted the idea that it is NOT a good idea to place people who are in Gitmo into our prison system. Prison is an ideal place for rebellion in ALL cultures. By placing these people in prison, the spread of that ideology into our civilian population would be dangerous.
Please see article "British prisons unable to handle Muslim Gangs" at
www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com dated May 27, 2008.
Would our prison system be much better? I don't ever want to find out.
Please see article "British prisons unable to handle Muslim Gangs" at
www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com dated May 27, 2008.
Would our prison system be much better? I don't ever want to find out.
Sunday, May 25, 2008
Pakistan taliban is reinforcing U.S. enemy in Afghanistan
I found this tiny article in the Chicago Tribune, 5/25/08 Page 15, Section 1.
"Pakistani Taliban leader sending fighters to Afghanistan".
"Pakistan’s top Taliban leader said Saturday that he is sending fighters to battle U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Baitullah Mehsud said his group "sincerely wants" peace with the new Pakistani government to succeed. But he said the holy war would continue until U.S. forces leave Afghanistan".
The article also notes how the new Pakistani government is moving to limit President Musharraf’s powers.
Makes sense. The less pressure from the Pakistani military on his organization the more strength they will have to fight us. Combat has jumped up by 50% in eastern Afghanistan since the new government of Pakistan gained control. Also during this time, the new government has made a number of deals with the Taliban, such as prisoner exchanges, withdrawal of troops from Tailiban held areas and a number of cease-fire arrangements. In the past year or so, the U.S. has launched attacks from aircraft in Afghanistan into Pakistan. From what I have read, these attacks have been very effective. I would now expect the Pakistani government to attempt to end this.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but it appears that making deals with Islamic groups like the Taliban are not in the U.S. best interests. It now appears that the governments of Pakistan, Iran and Syria are the leading elements of state support for Islamic terrorist groups. Once again, I would like to point out that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Iran has the missile delivery systems already and it can only be a matter of time before Iran obtains effective nuclear weapons.
Sooner or later a terrorist organization will obtain and deploy effective weapons of mass destruction. Most likely, a supportive government will supply the missing elements. If this occurs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will look like a walk in the park.
"Pakistani Taliban leader sending fighters to Afghanistan".
"Pakistan’s top Taliban leader said Saturday that he is sending fighters to battle U.S. troops in Afghanistan. Baitullah Mehsud said his group "sincerely wants" peace with the new Pakistani government to succeed. But he said the holy war would continue until U.S. forces leave Afghanistan".
The article also notes how the new Pakistani government is moving to limit President Musharraf’s powers.
Makes sense. The less pressure from the Pakistani military on his organization the more strength they will have to fight us. Combat has jumped up by 50% in eastern Afghanistan since the new government of Pakistan gained control. Also during this time, the new government has made a number of deals with the Taliban, such as prisoner exchanges, withdrawal of troops from Tailiban held areas and a number of cease-fire arrangements. In the past year or so, the U.S. has launched attacks from aircraft in Afghanistan into Pakistan. From what I have read, these attacks have been very effective. I would now expect the Pakistani government to attempt to end this.
I don’t want to jump to conclusions, but it appears that making deals with Islamic groups like the Taliban are not in the U.S. best interests. It now appears that the governments of Pakistan, Iran and Syria are the leading elements of state support for Islamic terrorist groups. Once again, I would like to point out that Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missile systems to deliver them. Iran has the missile delivery systems already and it can only be a matter of time before Iran obtains effective nuclear weapons.
Sooner or later a terrorist organization will obtain and deploy effective weapons of mass destruction. Most likely, a supportive government will supply the missing elements. If this occurs, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan will look like a walk in the park.
Friday, May 23, 2008
The Nation-State of Islam
Islam is not just a religion. Islamic law has been established and legal rulings issued for some 1400 years. Islamic legal scholars have issued binding legal rules during all of this time in a way that is similar to our Constitution and our Supreme Court. The present day president of Iran is internationally considered an authority on the Koran and Islamic law. In some ways, his position is similar to that of a Supreme Court justice in our legal system.
The Koran and Islam were started long before the concept of the nation-state. Islam was built as a religion with the power and functions of a nation-state. The entire legal system, the rules for declaring and ending wars. Many of the rules for entering and honoring treaties with other states. The rules for commerce, including a prohibition on earning interest. The rules for divorce and inheritance. These are some of the reasons why the Islamic world has such difficulty with the idea of nationalism. The very culture is more loyal to Islam and the clan than any concept of an independent nation-state. The idea of separating the ‘religion’ from the state is an anti-Islamic concept. You would have had to have left Islam to even consider this concept. 1400 years of legal rulings have made it VERY clear that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
Just last year in Afghanistan, a man was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. I do not know if that sentence was enforced or not, but if it was NOT then the entire government of Afghanistan must be considered apostate by Islam. This is similar to the issues when the riots broke out in Nigeria in 2006 when the court refused to have a convicted adulteress stoned to death.
The overall point is that Islam is much, much more than just a religion. It is not only a way of life, but also a governmental system complete with enforcement mechanisms. Islam can field an army, and has done so countless times throughout its history. It is doing so now. An additional problem is that Islam has been built to expand at non-Muslim expense.
"The presumption is that the obligation of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the entire world converts to Islam or is subjected to Muslim rule." "Traditional Islam views the world as belonging to one of two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war". (Bernard Lewis 2003)
No wonder the culture is so easily insulted. Any claim that in any way contests Islamic law or rule is cause for open warfare. This is an additional reason why separation of the "church" of Islam from any government will be fought with violence. Yet in order for the Muslim world to enter the modern world, this MUST occur. Or else we can all become Muslims.
This can be seen as a contributing cause of the Arab-Israeli wars. Seen in this way, it is no wonder that no peace has been obtained. The best hope for true peace is change within Islam. This is what the wars in the Middle East are really all about. In a way that is similar to the issue of slavery in the U.S., the war is well worth fighting. As with fighting slavery, this will be resisted violently and for a long time. The real trick will be to see if we can accomplish this without a terrorist organization obtaining and deploying any weapons of mass destruction.
The Koran and Islam were started long before the concept of the nation-state. Islam was built as a religion with the power and functions of a nation-state. The entire legal system, the rules for declaring and ending wars. Many of the rules for entering and honoring treaties with other states. The rules for commerce, including a prohibition on earning interest. The rules for divorce and inheritance. These are some of the reasons why the Islamic world has such difficulty with the idea of nationalism. The very culture is more loyal to Islam and the clan than any concept of an independent nation-state. The idea of separating the ‘religion’ from the state is an anti-Islamic concept. You would have had to have left Islam to even consider this concept. 1400 years of legal rulings have made it VERY clear that the penalty for leaving Islam is death.
Just last year in Afghanistan, a man was sentenced to death for converting to Christianity. I do not know if that sentence was enforced or not, but if it was NOT then the entire government of Afghanistan must be considered apostate by Islam. This is similar to the issues when the riots broke out in Nigeria in 2006 when the court refused to have a convicted adulteress stoned to death.
The overall point is that Islam is much, much more than just a religion. It is not only a way of life, but also a governmental system complete with enforcement mechanisms. Islam can field an army, and has done so countless times throughout its history. It is doing so now. An additional problem is that Islam has been built to expand at non-Muslim expense.
"The presumption is that the obligation of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the entire world converts to Islam or is subjected to Muslim rule." "Traditional Islam views the world as belonging to one of two houses, the house of Islam and the house of war". (Bernard Lewis 2003)
No wonder the culture is so easily insulted. Any claim that in any way contests Islamic law or rule is cause for open warfare. This is an additional reason why separation of the "church" of Islam from any government will be fought with violence. Yet in order for the Muslim world to enter the modern world, this MUST occur. Or else we can all become Muslims.
This can be seen as a contributing cause of the Arab-Israeli wars. Seen in this way, it is no wonder that no peace has been obtained. The best hope for true peace is change within Islam. This is what the wars in the Middle East are really all about. In a way that is similar to the issue of slavery in the U.S., the war is well worth fighting. As with fighting slavery, this will be resisted violently and for a long time. The real trick will be to see if we can accomplish this without a terrorist organization obtaining and deploying any weapons of mass destruction.
Wednesday, May 21, 2008
common reasons for open warfare
Naturally, defense against attack is accepted as a reasonable justification. This list is referring to reasons why a group would initiate open warfare.
Note – These are NOT numbered in order of importance, just for convenience. I have separated the order by external (Meaning warfare against a rival government) and internal (Within a country), but these can easily crossover.
External:
1) Threat to way of life. Many times, cultural change from ‘outside’ is blamed for changing the way of life and the values of a society. Nationalism may be viewed as a contributing force here.
2) Economic gain. An opportunity to seize what is not yours through armed force.
3) Distraction. Blaming internal problems on external enemies.
Internal:
1) Disagreement over form of government – Autocratic, socialist or democracy
2)Loyalty to organization other than the recognized government. (Loyalty to state over federal government, loyalty to clan or family over government, etc.)
3) Persecution and/or discrimination. (Race, Religion, clan, etc.)
4) Economic system. Capitalism, socialism. Spread the wealth or allow individuals to determine the direction of investment. Resources are the issues in many private arguments. In the public area, many times resources are at the heart of the issues for organized violence.
Note – These are NOT numbered in order of importance, just for convenience. I have separated the order by external (Meaning warfare against a rival government) and internal (Within a country), but these can easily crossover.
External:
1) Threat to way of life. Many times, cultural change from ‘outside’ is blamed for changing the way of life and the values of a society. Nationalism may be viewed as a contributing force here.
2) Economic gain. An opportunity to seize what is not yours through armed force.
3) Distraction. Blaming internal problems on external enemies.
Internal:
1) Disagreement over form of government – Autocratic, socialist or democracy
2)Loyalty to organization other than the recognized government. (Loyalty to state over federal government, loyalty to clan or family over government, etc.)
3) Persecution and/or discrimination. (Race, Religion, clan, etc.)
4) Economic system. Capitalism, socialism. Spread the wealth or allow individuals to determine the direction of investment. Resources are the issues in many private arguments. In the public area, many times resources are at the heart of the issues for organized violence.
Monday, May 19, 2008
Threat to world peace
Please visit www.longwarjournal.org for this article dated 5/18/08:
Pakistan close to inking peace agreement with Baitullah Mehsud
"The Taliban have freed Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan after three months of captivity as negotiations for the military to withdraw from the tribal areas progress. Ambassador Tariq Azizuddin was freed late May 16 as the Pakistani Army has begun withdrawing its forces from South Waziristan and a series of prisoner exchanges have occurred between the military and the Taliban."
This article details how the Pakistani government is apparently making deals with the Taliban. Pakistan has recently had a change of government through elections. It appears that the new government is more willing to talk and deal with the Tailban. The reason I bring this up is because we need to keep a close eye on Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
The trend in Pakistan is not unexpected. If elections were held throughout the Middle East, we would probably see results similar to what is going on in Pakistan. The election of HAMAS is another example. These organizations are respected and popular in the Muslim world. Their philosophy is based upon Islam.
State sponsored terrorism is currently the greatest threat to world peace today. It is only a matter of time before one of these terrorist organizations obtains an effective WMD.
This is why it is so important to have change occur in the Middle East, but at a pace that we can handle. Many wars have begun because change was occurring to rapidly. Cultural change is commonly resisted. Fighting for your way of life is so common throughout history that it can be considered part of human nature.
Right now, we have our hands full with Syria and Iran. Pakistan may be going this way; it is difficult and a little early to tell. I suspect this is why many governments throughout the Muslim world are not in any hurry to hold elections, and our current government is VERY cautious about encouraging this. This view acts as an additional brake on the democratic movement with the natural resistance to change that is present in all governments and societies.
Pakistan close to inking peace agreement with Baitullah Mehsud
"The Taliban have freed Pakistan’s ambassador to Afghanistan after three months of captivity as negotiations for the military to withdraw from the tribal areas progress. Ambassador Tariq Azizuddin was freed late May 16 as the Pakistani Army has begun withdrawing its forces from South Waziristan and a series of prisoner exchanges have occurred between the military and the Taliban."
This article details how the Pakistani government is apparently making deals with the Taliban. Pakistan has recently had a change of government through elections. It appears that the new government is more willing to talk and deal with the Tailban. The reason I bring this up is because we need to keep a close eye on Pakistan. Pakistan has nuclear weapons and the missiles to deliver them.
The trend in Pakistan is not unexpected. If elections were held throughout the Middle East, we would probably see results similar to what is going on in Pakistan. The election of HAMAS is another example. These organizations are respected and popular in the Muslim world. Their philosophy is based upon Islam.
State sponsored terrorism is currently the greatest threat to world peace today. It is only a matter of time before one of these terrorist organizations obtains an effective WMD.
This is why it is so important to have change occur in the Middle East, but at a pace that we can handle. Many wars have begun because change was occurring to rapidly. Cultural change is commonly resisted. Fighting for your way of life is so common throughout history that it can be considered part of human nature.
Right now, we have our hands full with Syria and Iran. Pakistan may be going this way; it is difficult and a little early to tell. I suspect this is why many governments throughout the Muslim world are not in any hurry to hold elections, and our current government is VERY cautious about encouraging this. This view acts as an additional brake on the democratic movement with the natural resistance to change that is present in all governments and societies.
Friday, May 16, 2008
Somali men living in Norway interviewed about rape. 5/16/08
Last week, I posted how the Muslim world needs to grow up.
The next few paragraphs I pulled from www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com.
The article is titled "If Norwegian women get raped by Somalia men, "it’s the womens fault" according to the rapists." Posted by allysonrt on May 16, 2008.
At least ten women were attacked and molested by a gang of Somali men at Sofienberg park in Oslo on Saturday evening. Last year a record-high 161 rapes and 35 rape attempts were reported in Oslo. Over 70% of the rapists were non-Norwegian [ed. ethnically, a majority had Norwegian citizenship].Lawyer Abid Raja visited a cafe in Grønland in Oslo for Norwegian broadcaster P4. There he met three young men (ages 26, 30 and 35), from Somalia and Senegal. The men, who refused to have their names published, spoke with P4 about the rape and robbery wave hitting the city.
A: But listen now, Norwegian girls complain that foreign boys do this and that, but the reason there are so many rapes is that Norwegian girls go around almost completely naked! That’s like saying "come here and fuck me", you understand?
Please read the full article for a fuller version of the interview.
This is not an uncommon view throughout the Muslim world. The Muslim world not only needs to grow up, it needs to learn a little self control.
The next few paragraphs I pulled from www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com.
The article is titled "If Norwegian women get raped by Somalia men, "it’s the womens fault" according to the rapists." Posted by allysonrt on May 16, 2008.
At least ten women were attacked and molested by a gang of Somali men at Sofienberg park in Oslo on Saturday evening. Last year a record-high 161 rapes and 35 rape attempts were reported in Oslo. Over 70% of the rapists were non-Norwegian [ed. ethnically, a majority had Norwegian citizenship].Lawyer Abid Raja visited a cafe in Grønland in Oslo for Norwegian broadcaster P4. There he met three young men (ages 26, 30 and 35), from Somalia and Senegal. The men, who refused to have their names published, spoke with P4 about the rape and robbery wave hitting the city.
A: But listen now, Norwegian girls complain that foreign boys do this and that, but the reason there are so many rapes is that Norwegian girls go around almost completely naked! That’s like saying "come here and fuck me", you understand?
Please read the full article for a fuller version of the interview.
This is not an uncommon view throughout the Muslim world. The Muslim world not only needs to grow up, it needs to learn a little self control.
Osama bin Lauden's mistake
Osama made a mistake on 9/11/01. He hit us too soon. He really should have waited. I sent an e-mail to the White House (Yea, like it will really make much difference) where I pointed out that if the attack on Washington D.C. on 9/11/01 had been with a nuclear device, our government would have been decapitated. Both houses of Congress were in session, as was the Supreme Court of the U.S. The military of this country reports to the civilian government, so it stands to reason the most, if not all of the top ‘Brass’ was in D.C that day as well. After all, at that level military officers are almost as political as they are generals. The military would have survived in better shape. The organization is designed to run even if portions are destroyed. It would have still been injured. I believe that this is the reason why the Bush administration developed that ‘shadow’ government that we used to hear about. This was a concept from the 1950’s with a modern twist. With the telecommunications of today, key elements of the government do not have to be physically present to conduct the business of the country. In at least one way, the threat of nuclear war is actually much higher today than during the worst days of the Soviet Union. Not because of the number of weapons, but because of the likelihood of use of them if they ever become available to the other side.
The Soviet Union was not interested in suicide. In 1963, it was the Russians who turned their ships around to avoid a nuclear confrontation. Granted, the war that could have resulted could arguably have ended human life on this planet. The war today probably will not, even if terrorists were able to successfully deploy multiple nuclear weapons. Talk about a punitive war. I would expect retaliation from us in this event. No such thing as ‘innocent’ civilians when we discuss this type of warfare. In any case, it will be far more difficult for terrorists to attempt a strike like 9/11/01 with nuclear weapons now that we have been alerted. Surprise has always been a major ingredient in successful military attacks. They will most likely have to use some other method. By making them change methods, we make their task more difficult. This is a direct result of the attacks on 9/11/01.
The Soviet Union was not interested in suicide. In 1963, it was the Russians who turned their ships around to avoid a nuclear confrontation. Granted, the war that could have resulted could arguably have ended human life on this planet. The war today probably will not, even if terrorists were able to successfully deploy multiple nuclear weapons. Talk about a punitive war. I would expect retaliation from us in this event. No such thing as ‘innocent’ civilians when we discuss this type of warfare. In any case, it will be far more difficult for terrorists to attempt a strike like 9/11/01 with nuclear weapons now that we have been alerted. Surprise has always been a major ingredient in successful military attacks. They will most likely have to use some other method. By making them change methods, we make their task more difficult. This is a direct result of the attacks on 9/11/01.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Islamic Banking
An excellent site for information on Islamic banking is www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com
Withdrawal from Iraq
As a general rule, I try to avoid politics as much as possible. My strength is warfare. Politics and warfare do not mix well at all, and I just do not understand politics very well. However, politics impacts the war effort.
A year and a half ago, Senator Obama had wanted a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 3/31/08. Seeing as he is one of my senators from Illinois, I wrote to him about his idea. I began with a little history:
After England had ended the war against the colonists in America, they sent their fleet to withdraw not only the troops. Many colonists had been against the Revolution; many had even fought on the English side. (Tories) Some of their lives were at stake, and many just did not want to live here anymore. England took care of their people. Today, I would expect mass murder in Iraq if we left. It would only be right for us to protect them and clean up our own mess. I was asking Senator Obama that if we did withdraw, he would ensure that ALL of those who wanted to leave are given transportation out of Iraq.
This would entail a number of problems. Actual transportation would be an issue depending upon how many people actually wanted to leave. In addition, how would we know if someone really wanted to leave, or if they were looking to infiltrate the areas that these people would be going to? ‘Extremists’ could hide within the group. Then we have the problem of where would they go.
If the past would serve as any indication, the Arab world would reject the idea of any of these people coming to their lands. My argument to Senator Obama was that if no other government would take them in, it would be our responsibility to accept them within our own country. The numbers could be enormous. I wanted the Senator to know that despite this, we should still do it. I have my doubts that the Senator would go to the extent that I am demanding.
Once again, if the past serves as an indication, we would abandon them like in Vietnam and leave them to their fate. I find this idea repulsive. I find the entire idea of withdrawal from Iraq repulsive, not to mention dangerous. The South Vietnamese government lasted 2 years after we left. After it fell and the ‘enemy’ settled the score internally, they left the U.S. alone. It boils down to this: Do you believe that if the government of Iraq were to fall to the ‘insurgents’, the new government would leave the U.S. alone like Vietnam did?
A year and a half ago, Senator Obama had wanted a withdrawal of U.S. combat troops from Iraq by 3/31/08. Seeing as he is one of my senators from Illinois, I wrote to him about his idea. I began with a little history:
After England had ended the war against the colonists in America, they sent their fleet to withdraw not only the troops. Many colonists had been against the Revolution; many had even fought on the English side. (Tories) Some of their lives were at stake, and many just did not want to live here anymore. England took care of their people. Today, I would expect mass murder in Iraq if we left. It would only be right for us to protect them and clean up our own mess. I was asking Senator Obama that if we did withdraw, he would ensure that ALL of those who wanted to leave are given transportation out of Iraq.
This would entail a number of problems. Actual transportation would be an issue depending upon how many people actually wanted to leave. In addition, how would we know if someone really wanted to leave, or if they were looking to infiltrate the areas that these people would be going to? ‘Extremists’ could hide within the group. Then we have the problem of where would they go.
If the past would serve as any indication, the Arab world would reject the idea of any of these people coming to their lands. My argument to Senator Obama was that if no other government would take them in, it would be our responsibility to accept them within our own country. The numbers could be enormous. I wanted the Senator to know that despite this, we should still do it. I have my doubts that the Senator would go to the extent that I am demanding.
Once again, if the past serves as an indication, we would abandon them like in Vietnam and leave them to their fate. I find this idea repulsive. I find the entire idea of withdrawal from Iraq repulsive, not to mention dangerous. The South Vietnamese government lasted 2 years after we left. After it fell and the ‘enemy’ settled the score internally, they left the U.S. alone. It boils down to this: Do you believe that if the government of Iraq were to fall to the ‘insurgents’, the new government would leave the U.S. alone like Vietnam did?
Monday, May 12, 2008
Warfare is part of human nature
Warfare is human conflict taken to the most violent degree. Human conflict has been and will be with us always. Throughout history, much violent conflict centered on resources. Conflict occurs over many resources such as food, water, and even your mate. One of the things that separate humans from the rest of the animal population is our ability to reason things out. Many times, conflict may be resolved without violence by thinking things through and cooperating. However, even in the human world, this is not always possible.
The issue of slavery in the United States was decided by violence such as this country had never seen before, nor since. We lost more men in that conflict than any other our country has been involved in. It was well worth it. The primary issues of slavery and the federal government over the state government needed to be resolved. To resolve these issues without warfare is almost inconceivable. The issues were too important and impacted the lives of common people far too much. This is one reason why so many good southerners fought for something as evil as slavery. This was a good reason why so many good Germans and Japanese fought for evil during World War II. They were defending their way of life.
I have studied the biographies of thousands of soldiers. The most common reason (Not even close) that they cite as being why they became soldiers in the first place was to defend their way of life. I am referring to the initial decision to join up. This is long before they become comrades in arms and decided to risk their life to protect a fellow soldier. The threat of altering the way of life of just about ANY group will trigger organized violence. In larger groups, this takes the form of warfare. This is human nature. It is as much a part of us as eating and drinking. As much as we would like to, we will never be able to get rid of warfare. Issues will need to be decided that will not have any other means of resolution. In other words, diplomacy has its limits. World War II is a recent example. In addition, the European part of World War II is also an example of trying to hold back the violence until it gets out of control.
If England and France had fought against Germany for Czechoslovakia in 1938 (Like they had promised) the resulting war was projected to have lasted about 6 months instead of 6 years. (As it turned out, the German High Command was planning a coup if war did break out. If that had succeeded, the war would have lasted only days. This was unknown until after the war.) Instead of avoiding the war, backing off ended up making the war far more destructive. As much as we all dislike war, it is a necessary part of life. Certain issues are important to fight for, even if that results in open warfare.
The issue of slavery in the United States was decided by violence such as this country had never seen before, nor since. We lost more men in that conflict than any other our country has been involved in. It was well worth it. The primary issues of slavery and the federal government over the state government needed to be resolved. To resolve these issues without warfare is almost inconceivable. The issues were too important and impacted the lives of common people far too much. This is one reason why so many good southerners fought for something as evil as slavery. This was a good reason why so many good Germans and Japanese fought for evil during World War II. They were defending their way of life.
I have studied the biographies of thousands of soldiers. The most common reason (Not even close) that they cite as being why they became soldiers in the first place was to defend their way of life. I am referring to the initial decision to join up. This is long before they become comrades in arms and decided to risk their life to protect a fellow soldier. The threat of altering the way of life of just about ANY group will trigger organized violence. In larger groups, this takes the form of warfare. This is human nature. It is as much a part of us as eating and drinking. As much as we would like to, we will never be able to get rid of warfare. Issues will need to be decided that will not have any other means of resolution. In other words, diplomacy has its limits. World War II is a recent example. In addition, the European part of World War II is also an example of trying to hold back the violence until it gets out of control.
If England and France had fought against Germany for Czechoslovakia in 1938 (Like they had promised) the resulting war was projected to have lasted about 6 months instead of 6 years. (As it turned out, the German High Command was planning a coup if war did break out. If that had succeeded, the war would have lasted only days. This was unknown until after the war.) Instead of avoiding the war, backing off ended up making the war far more destructive. As much as we all dislike war, it is a necessary part of life. Certain issues are important to fight for, even if that results in open warfare.
Friday, May 9, 2008
Violence erupts in Lebanon
Open warfare has broken out in Lebanon again. Hezbollah leader Hassan Nasrallah recently said "Our response is that, whoever declares a war against us or starts a war against us, whether it’s a brother or father, it is our right to defend ourselves".
This quote is interesting for two reasons:
1) He is acting like the leader of a government. He can declare war and have war declared against him and his organization. This is a problem because a country should have only one government. This issue has caused many wars throughout history. This is one of the issues that the war in Iraq is about. The Arab world tends to have more loyalty to other organizations than to the governments that rules the country. We had seen this in our own country, during the U.S. Civil War. The Federal government runs the United States, not the state governments.
2) His organization is claiming the right to defend itself. Everyone has this right. His organization is being threatened. I am certain that he (and his followers) feel that their way of life is being threatened. After all, this organization represents their way of life. This is another issue that the war in Iraq is about, as well as a major cause of wars throughout human history.
All wars are unique. This one has its share of complexities. Many of the basic issues that are being fought over throughout the Muslim world are present in Lebanon. This is also a mixing point of Muslim culture and the outside world. Other parts of the world that have a mix like this are also constantly at the point of open warfare. These issues need to be resolved. History has shown time and again that these issues have no diplomatic or political solutions. Open warfare is how humans have resolved these issues in the past, present, and will do so in the future.
In the next post, I plan to discuss how warfare is a part of human nature.
This quote is interesting for two reasons:
1) He is acting like the leader of a government. He can declare war and have war declared against him and his organization. This is a problem because a country should have only one government. This issue has caused many wars throughout history. This is one of the issues that the war in Iraq is about. The Arab world tends to have more loyalty to other organizations than to the governments that rules the country. We had seen this in our own country, during the U.S. Civil War. The Federal government runs the United States, not the state governments.
2) His organization is claiming the right to defend itself. Everyone has this right. His organization is being threatened. I am certain that he (and his followers) feel that their way of life is being threatened. After all, this organization represents their way of life. This is another issue that the war in Iraq is about, as well as a major cause of wars throughout human history.
All wars are unique. This one has its share of complexities. Many of the basic issues that are being fought over throughout the Muslim world are present in Lebanon. This is also a mixing point of Muslim culture and the outside world. Other parts of the world that have a mix like this are also constantly at the point of open warfare. These issues need to be resolved. History has shown time and again that these issues have no diplomatic or political solutions. Open warfare is how humans have resolved these issues in the past, present, and will do so in the future.
In the next post, I plan to discuss how warfare is a part of human nature.
Wednesday, May 7, 2008
Radical Islam
I pulled this from www.shariahfinancewatch.wordpress.com. This site studies Islamic finance and how it impacts the Islamic world, as well as the rest of the world.
"Gallup says only 7 percent of the world’s Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified."
This does not surprise me. The election of HAMAS was not a surprise either. If you held elections throughout the Arab world, I am certain that you would obtain similar results. After all, they are defending their way of life. The western world threatens their way of life in many, many ways. Similar to the time period prior to the U.S. Civil War, the North threatened the Southern way of life, just by interacting with it. In today’s global economy, we are all interconnected in ways that had been impossible before. Like the issue of slavery and states rights, the issues that are present in Islam are the catalysts of the war today. I am certain that the vast majority of Americans would agree that the issues the U.S. Civil War decided were worth fighting over.
Please note that ONLY 7 percent of the world’s population of Muslims (Those that are radical) equals more than 70 MILLION people. This is one hell of a large army. This population is only a little smaller than the entire population of Germany in 1939. (Around 85 million which of course, includes women and children)
The 36 percent that believe 9/11 was justified equal around 370 MILLION people. This is greater than the population of the United States. In addition, I will not let you forget that in 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. We could expect many, many more Muslims to side with the jihadists when push comes to shove.
It continues to amaze me how small the actual war is considering the size of the populations involved.
"Gallup says only 7 percent of the world’s Muslims are political radicals. Yet 36 percent think the 9/11 attacks were in some way justified."
This does not surprise me. The election of HAMAS was not a surprise either. If you held elections throughout the Arab world, I am certain that you would obtain similar results. After all, they are defending their way of life. The western world threatens their way of life in many, many ways. Similar to the time period prior to the U.S. Civil War, the North threatened the Southern way of life, just by interacting with it. In today’s global economy, we are all interconnected in ways that had been impossible before. Like the issue of slavery and states rights, the issues that are present in Islam are the catalysts of the war today. I am certain that the vast majority of Americans would agree that the issues the U.S. Civil War decided were worth fighting over.
Please note that ONLY 7 percent of the world’s population of Muslims (Those that are radical) equals more than 70 MILLION people. This is one hell of a large army. This population is only a little smaller than the entire population of Germany in 1939. (Around 85 million which of course, includes women and children)
The 36 percent that believe 9/11 was justified equal around 370 MILLION people. This is greater than the population of the United States. In addition, I will not let you forget that in 1944, the vast majority of Germans and Japanese were good people. We could expect many, many more Muslims to side with the jihadists when push comes to shove.
It continues to amaze me how small the actual war is considering the size of the populations involved.
Monday, May 5, 2008
The Muslim world needs to grow up.
A terrorist was killed in Somalia on 5/1/08 by an U.S. air strike. Some discussion was being made on a board that I monitor and comments were positive. A poster thought that the commentators were gloating about killing a "freedom fighter". Accusations can reveal just as much, if not more about the accuser than the accused. I did not see any of the comments made as gloating. I do remember the films of people in the streets; waving and shooting weapons in the air after hearing the news about the 9/11 attacks. I consider this to be gloating. This has occurred on many other occasions as well. It would be considered improper to do anything like this in the United States. (Not to mention illegal)
Does it seem that the Arab world is easily insulted? Riots occur for things that we in the West consider being minor insults. The Danish cartoons come to mind. The penalty for insulting the profit Mohammed is death. The Muslim world takes this VERY seriously. Is it really proper to take violent action after being insulted? After all, if someone gives us the finger, or calls us the "F" word do any of us riot, or pull out a weapon? What about the insulting things that Reverend Wright has said? Has anyone issued a death FATWA against him? The point is that the Muslim world needs to learn a little anger management and in the process to learn how to take insults like a man. I suspect that these are really only excuses.
Part of the cause of the Muslim world being so sensitive to insult springs from a feeling of superiority. (Yes, superiority, NOT inferiority) If you listen to many Muslim conversations about the West, you will notice how decadent, weak and superficial we all are. They like our economic prowess, but feel that we are morally weak. Many Japanese had this same view of the U.S. prior to World War II. And for the first time in all of recorded history, they produced organized, mass suicide attackers. Many Japanese had believed that their willingness to die and our unwillingness to die would allow them to ultimately prevail. Even given tremendous inferiority in numbers and/or equipment. "The highest honor he could hope for was to die for the Emperor". (The code of Bushido) This sounds familiar. The really scary part is that it took nuclear weapons to end the entire affair the first time.
My personal hope is that a reformation of Islam occurs that is based upon commonly accepted human rights (Not Muslim rights) and is universally accepted by the Muslim world. This is asking a lot, because we are talking about a culture of more than 1 billion people. Cultural change has been responsible for many, many wars throughout mankind’s history.
Does it seem that the Arab world is easily insulted? Riots occur for things that we in the West consider being minor insults. The Danish cartoons come to mind. The penalty for insulting the profit Mohammed is death. The Muslim world takes this VERY seriously. Is it really proper to take violent action after being insulted? After all, if someone gives us the finger, or calls us the "F" word do any of us riot, or pull out a weapon? What about the insulting things that Reverend Wright has said? Has anyone issued a death FATWA against him? The point is that the Muslim world needs to learn a little anger management and in the process to learn how to take insults like a man. I suspect that these are really only excuses.
Part of the cause of the Muslim world being so sensitive to insult springs from a feeling of superiority. (Yes, superiority, NOT inferiority) If you listen to many Muslim conversations about the West, you will notice how decadent, weak and superficial we all are. They like our economic prowess, but feel that we are morally weak. Many Japanese had this same view of the U.S. prior to World War II. And for the first time in all of recorded history, they produced organized, mass suicide attackers. Many Japanese had believed that their willingness to die and our unwillingness to die would allow them to ultimately prevail. Even given tremendous inferiority in numbers and/or equipment. "The highest honor he could hope for was to die for the Emperor". (The code of Bushido) This sounds familiar. The really scary part is that it took nuclear weapons to end the entire affair the first time.
My personal hope is that a reformation of Islam occurs that is based upon commonly accepted human rights (Not Muslim rights) and is universally accepted by the Muslim world. This is asking a lot, because we are talking about a culture of more than 1 billion people. Cultural change has been responsible for many, many wars throughout mankind’s history.
Friday, May 2, 2008
Islamic Reformation?
A close friend recently sent me an article that discussed a reinterpretation of modern Islam. The article began with this:
"ANKARA, Turkey — In a sterile, boxy stone building in the shadow of Ankara's central mosque, a group of Turkish scholars is spearheading a reinterpretation of the literary foundations of Islam that some have compared to Christianity's Protestant Reformation."
I believe that this is a vital part of the war against global terrorism. I also believe that this group has its work cut out. 1400 years of Islamic legal rulings will be questioned. The very culture of the Middle East would be impacted. You want to start a war? Start changing the culture of ANY large group. This is precisely what we are doing in Iraq. Many of the issues that I have stated as being sound reasons for our fighting a war in Iraq are present in modern Islam. A brief review:
1) Tribute. Payment of infidels to Muslim authorities where infidels are living on Muslim land.
2) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of ANY Muslim land. An additional problem is that once land is Muslim, it can not revert back to being non-Muslim.
3) Penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) Once you become Muslim, you can’t change to any other religion.
4) All references to women and infidels as property. (Slaves)
5) A married woman who is convicted of adultery is to be stoned to death.
6) "In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war".
7) Jihad. War may be waged at any time against Infidels and Apostates. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Page 31, copyright 2003.)
Muslims are not supposed to obtain booty for their own gain. This was how armies were paid back in the 6th century. History is filled with examples of people who seized booty for personal gain. Muslims are no less human than any of us. It can be expected to happen, and I am certain that over the past 1400 years, countless Muslims have seized property for personal benefit.
8) Honor killings.
9) Fatwa
10) Islamic electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man, (men only) one vote, once."
These are only some of the Issues. Modern Islam must change. The war in Iraq is in part about the changes that must occur for Islam to enter the modern world.
This Reformation (If that is what it is) can be a vital part of the change that is necessary. Let us all hope that they are successful in making the Muslim world adopt new ideas that are more compatible with the modern world. I would expect armed resistance for a long time before this is universally accepted in the Muslim world. However, the effort will be well worth it.
"ANKARA, Turkey — In a sterile, boxy stone building in the shadow of Ankara's central mosque, a group of Turkish scholars is spearheading a reinterpretation of the literary foundations of Islam that some have compared to Christianity's Protestant Reformation."
I believe that this is a vital part of the war against global terrorism. I also believe that this group has its work cut out. 1400 years of Islamic legal rulings will be questioned. The very culture of the Middle East would be impacted. You want to start a war? Start changing the culture of ANY large group. This is precisely what we are doing in Iraq. Many of the issues that I have stated as being sound reasons for our fighting a war in Iraq are present in modern Islam. A brief review:
1) Tribute. Payment of infidels to Muslim authorities where infidels are living on Muslim land.
2) Moral obligation to kill occupiers of ANY Muslim land. An additional problem is that once land is Muslim, it can not revert back to being non-Muslim.
3) Penalty for leaving Islam is death. (An Apostate) Once you become Muslim, you can’t change to any other religion.
4) All references to women and infidels as property. (Slaves)
5) A married woman who is convicted of adultery is to be stoned to death.
6) "In Muslim tradition, the world is divided into two houses: The house of Islam and the house of war".
7) Jihad. War may be waged at any time against Infidels and Apostates. "The presumption is that the duty of Jihad will continue (Interrupted only by truces) until the world adopts Islam or submits to Muslim rule." "Those who fight in the Jihad qualify for rewards in both worlds. Booty in this one, paradise in the next." (Bernard Lewis, The Crisis of Islam, Page 31, copyright 2003.)
Muslims are not supposed to obtain booty for their own gain. This was how armies were paid back in the 6th century. History is filled with examples of people who seized booty for personal gain. Muslims are no less human than any of us. It can be expected to happen, and I am certain that over the past 1400 years, countless Muslims have seized property for personal benefit.
8) Honor killings.
9) Fatwa
10) Islamic electoral policy has been classically summarized as "One man, (men only) one vote, once."
These are only some of the Issues. Modern Islam must change. The war in Iraq is in part about the changes that must occur for Islam to enter the modern world.
This Reformation (If that is what it is) can be a vital part of the change that is necessary. Let us all hope that they are successful in making the Muslim world adopt new ideas that are more compatible with the modern world. I would expect armed resistance for a long time before this is universally accepted in the Muslim world. However, the effort will be well worth it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
