Archive | July, 2009

Israel has no occupied land. International norm is that land gained in a [defensive] war, belongs to the conqueror; that norm applies to land won by Israel in 1967…

28 Jul

Accept for the case of Israel, at no time in the history of civilization was a cconqueror required to return occupied land! Why does Israel have to be the exception?

Having lost a great deal of territory when the British government, without legal authority, split Palestine and created Transjordan (now Jordan,) and reduced the Palestine that was to be divided between the Jews and Arabs to a minute plot of land.Israel, one of the smallest country in the world continues to relinquish territory because it desires peace. Even though the land for peace formula served a purpose, giving back any more territory by Israle should be strictly at its largess.

United States demands that Israel stop all buildings in East Jerusalem and the West Bank is a demonstration how poorly the US is prepared to deal with the Israeli issue.

All territory gained by Israel in 1967 is its property to do with as it pleases. The US must examine what security, cultural, historic, and religious  consideration must be dealt with before imposing its will on anyone, especially on Israel.

The United States, if it wishes to be an honest broker must start with the premise that there are no occupied territories on the West Bank, and that it Israel’s largess that should be the determining factor on what additional land it is willing to relinquish in order to achieve peace.

Advertisements

Is the United States at war? If it is, against whom? Without war the use of the War Powers Act is Illegal!

28 Jul

For a nation be in a state of war, said nation must have a defined enemy, and identifiable objectives. The 2001 US war was, more-or-less a war against the Sadam Hussine regime in Iraq. Once that war ended, when President George W, Bush declared mission accomplished. For all practical purposes,  the President’s words put an end to that war, bringing up the question: Is the United States [still] in a state of war, and if it is, with whom?

In order to be at war one must have a tangible enemy; neither terror, terrorism, or radical Islam, fit that criteria, all are virtual rather than tangible entities. Based on that premise, with whom is the United States at war?

Can a nation be at war against an idea, a concept, or a philosophy of life? If it can, how does one define such a state?

A case in point could be made of Afghanistan where the Taliban, a group of Afghani natives, would like to impose their [minority] point of view on the whole country. Is the Taliban at war in Afghanistan, or is the conflict a case of internal (national,) civil disorder?

Since the situation Iraq is quickly becoming and internal issue, and if the conflict in Afghanistan is one internal dimensions, is the United States in a war, or is it aiding an ally with its efforts in Afghanistan?   

The Founding Fathers, in their [collective] wisdom insisted that in the United States, state and church be separated. Separation notwithstanding, the founders also insisted that members of all religions be treated equally under the law.

The First Amendment gives all those legally in the United States the right to speak as they please, providing one does not causes harm (such as shouting fire in a crowded theater) by what one says.

Notwithstanding the right for free religion in the United States, is a religion that instructs its followers  to eliminate all those who do not believe as it teaches be put in a category of one who shouts fire in a crowded theater? Should believers in such religion be outlawed in the United States? Islam is such a religion, are those who embrace it in a state of war against the United States?

Even though the Koran is a declaration of war against all who do not accept Allah as the one and only legitimate God, are those who embrace it at war with all those who don’t believe?

Technically, in spite of what United States Administrations, starting with that under George W. Bush, claim that the United States is at war, the fact that there is no well defined enemy, suggests that the United States is not at war since the war against Iraq was declared won (the George W. Bush mission completed declaration,) and using the War Powers Act, in any of its nuances, has become illegal since that time.

If the United States is at war, it must be at war with Islam, not radical Islam, but Islam, those who unconditionally embrace the teaching of the Koran. If the US is not at war with Islam, as President Obama claims, then the US ia not in [any] state of war, and must cease to use the War Powers Act, or anything related to it.

Israel, a pawn in Obama’s geopolitical game!

28 Jul

 

Israel, Obama’s bargaining-chip!

 Israel has turned into a pawn in Obama’s international chess game. His emissary, George Mitchell, already made a statement suggesting that before any progress is made, Israel must stop building in the West Bank… Israel must give again, even before most Islamic (including Arab) nations would even acknowledge its right to exist, or agree to remove from their charters provisions to destroy Israel.

 Yes, according to the Obama doctrine, Israel must give up security consideration, some of its historic rights, and its right to unabated self-determination, before its enemies need to make any concessions. Israel is the pawn Obama is willing to sacrifice in his geo-political game with his Muslim brethren.

 For over sixty years Israel was the only democracy, and the only dependable ally the United States had in the middle East; was all that time a waste to only lead to an Israel without defendable borders, a country surrounded by enemies who are determined to destroy it, or at least do-away with its character, the one that makes it a Jewish state, a state where Jews that the rest of the world often rejects, can have refuge and peace forever?

 Obama, who by virtue of his Islamic nature, instincts, and birthrights, seems to think like a Muslim, act like a Muslim, and have obvious sympathies for Islam, seems to support Israel as long as it does his bidding. As long as Israel is willing to jump when the Obama Administration tells it to jump, Obama is willing to consider it an ally, but let Israel voice opinion contrary to that of his Administration, it’s under the bus to join all other who does not serve his political ambitions.

 To Barak Hussein Obama, neither Israel, nor Jews are important unless they serve his political agenda. Obama’s friends only remain friends as long as their friendship does not require sacrifices by the President. There is the Reverend Wright, the gays who expected the don’t ask don’t tell to be removed, the Ayers, and many others who can attest to the fact that loyalty is not a trait Obama possesses.

 For international alliances to work loyalties are needed, and the world is learning that Obama cannot be counted on when loyalty is required. Israel, and the Jewish people must accept that Obama’s friendship towards them is a fragile state that can be easily be abandoned by the President should it interfere with his agenda.

Your friends’ enemies are your enemies! Since they are, Obama is wrong: Islam, and particularly Iran under Ahmadinejad, is his enemy! (If for no other reason then because it openly vows to destroy Israel, the US’ only real ally and friend in the Middle East.)

24 Jul

President Barak Obama continues to say that the United States is not now, never was, and never will be at war with Islam; he is outright wrong!

President Obama’s gestures towards the Islamic world notwithstanding, ditancing himself from Israel, the only dependable ally the United States had in the Middle East for sixty years, is an error that he must fix. Obama’s behavior towards friends (like the Reverend Wright) who he throws under the bus when they appear to be a political liability, is not a display of a character worthy of the United States. Commitments and loyalties are important, even though they may come at the expense of political gain, and President Obama must learn how to put alliances ahead of short-term political gains.

Since Israel is the United States friend and ally, its enemies are also enemies of the United States. The Islamic Republic of Iran, for example is on record as planning to destroy the State of Israel, that is a declared state of war with Israel, does it not in fact puts it in a state of war with The United States?

Until Egypt and Jordan signed peace treaties with Israel, all Islamic states were formally in a state of war with Israel, and de facto, with the United States.

Why is Barak Obama continues to  declare that the United States wishes to deal with Iran through diplomatic channels even in face of Iran’s declaration of war against Israel, and its insistence on becoming a nuclear power, in violation of United Nations resolution(s)? Why doesn’t Barak Obama accept the fact that the United States is in a state of war with Iran, and then, and only then look into means to end the war and negotiate terms for peace?

For the United States to have peace and diplomatic relations with Iran, the Ahmadinejad regime must cease to maintain a position that it would destroy Israel, which like Iran, is a member in good standing, of the United Nations. As a matter of fact, there should be a general rule at the United Nations, that of a member state declares war on another member state, it is automatically expelled.

President Obama must accept the obligation that allied nations must look for each other interests, and not to capitulate to enemies even though they may appear to have something that he desires. Geting some of Iran’s oil may be important to short-term US interests, but it should not be as important as standing by its allies.

Is your enemy’s enemy your friend? Hosni Mubarak seems to have more faith in Netanyahu, than in Obama: Israeli submarines through the Suez! Part of “the” Iran solution?

21 Jul

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a Shiite leading an Aryan nation, represents a threat to all Middle Eastern nations, he uses open threats against Israel to divert attention from the threat a nuclear Iran is to Islamic (largely Sunni) Arab people. Most Arab countries, Egypt in the lead, realize that Ahmadinejad’s nuclear ambitions are not designed to give Iran additional electric power, or to strengthen Islamic nations, but rather to get Iran to replace Sadam Hussein as THE most dominant Islamic power.

But since Iran is an Aryan Shiite nation, and because Arabs are mostly Semite Sunnis, there is little trust by most of the Arab world of Iran, especially under Ahmadinejad, an irrational autocratc leader.

Intelligent observers around the world seem to feel that the United States under Obama’s Administration is too timid to deal with the Islamic threat, especially that of Ahmadinejad’s Iran, and they appear to be right. Obama’s demeanor, his Islamic sympathies, and rehtoric of appeasement, suggest that he will not be the person to keep a strong United States that can keep the free world safe.

Hosni Mubarak, the very smart Arab leader that he is, by allowing Israel’s Dolphine submarines through the Suez Canal, gave the green-light for Israel to deal with Iran, his enemy and one of the reasons why Israel is his friend: His enemies enemies are his friends!

Why it is not possible for either pure Socialism, or pure Capitalism to survive? (Part II)

14 Jul

Examples of actual, and nearly pure Socialism can be only found among cults, small Israeli Kibbutzim, or highly autocratic societies. Since Socialism requires collective, rather than individual incentives for members to better themselves, a centralized authority must exercise tight control on activities within the community. The Kibbutz, as are most cults are relatively small entities that is relative easy to control. Countries that attempt to adopt Socialism have much more difficult taskd and must deploy high level control over the population; Cuba may be a case in point.

By its nature, a socialist system without tight control, is likely to end up in chaos; an out of control disaster.

A purely capitalistic system in one that attempts to allow people to fend for themselves, counting on an honest, and pure hearted subjects.  Time and time again, most recently under George W. Bush, people proved that greed takes over when it is not controlled by government, and shades of anarchy start to rear their nugly heads.

Similar to Socialism, Capitalism may thrive in very small entities, but even then, such as in the case Monaco, Capitalism must call on Socialist elements to have a satisractorly functioning system. As in the case of Monaco, it call on outside government help, such as Monaco’s dependence on France and on the European Union for a large number services, and activities.

History of the human race suggest that for an economic system to succeed and prosper, elements of several econimic theories must be deployed. The United States, during its most prosperous times, was a Capitalistc society deploying numerous socialistic elemts to prevent it from become an anarchy and collapse. At best, the Unites States can be labled: Quasi-Capitalism.

Since, regardless of what some religious suggest, not all people are created equal, a system allowing its people to act strictly on their own self interests, disparities that result can only cause conflict, that is likely to eventually bring about anarchy. The US uses socialistic elements to avert disaster by offering social security, a tax system that does some [small] amount of income equalization, securities trade control (under the SEC,) and other government controls of trade and the acquisition of wealth.

By the same token socialistic societies borrow numerous capitalistic elements to keep from falling into chaotic situations.  Union labors, strong Socialistic tools, are kept from monopolizing all jobs, allowing for some level of free trade, and not controlling individual wealth by allowing personal possessions beyond just what is required for a living, are but a few of the capitalistic elements used by most successfully functioning socialistic system.

Summing up: Pure Capitalism can only lead to anarchy, while pure Socialism can only lead to chaos. History clearly demonstrates that a hybrid economic system, each using elements from various economic theories, is what required to survive and succeed in human society. The mix of system depends on culture (including religion,) environment, and system of government.

Palin: Shades of Agnew, Quail & Cheney.

13 Jul

Sharah Palin remain on the national political scene primerily due to un-relenting media exposure, be it negative, or otherwise. Few days go by when Palin’s name does not appear someplace in the media, a strategy that may hurt Palin because it would give the public more than enough time to examine her weaknesses before the 2012 election.

Palin reminds this author of three GOP Veeps:

1) Agnew with his shady dealings. Palin with all the corruption investigations; where there is smoke, there must be fire.

2) Quail’s inarticulate speeches are much like those Plain gives whenever she has an opportunity.

3) Cheney’s, arrogance. Palin suggesting that she is destine to higher calling, when to date she seems to have demostrated that she is a product of the Peter Principle: Reaching [and exceeding] her level of incompetence.

In his desperation to line-up some conservative votes, John McCain created a monster that may well give the Democrats the best Presidential opponent that they could wish for 2012: Sarah Palin.