I would just like to outline my theory behind what is horribly wrong with the recent happenings off the coast of Israel/Gaza. This much we know for sure, a couple of ships from various places with lots of people from various places were trying to take stuff to a place that the government of Israel has publicly declared a blockade against.
Can we agree on that at least?
Okay, so the question of the hour, what does it mean to have a blockade, Mr. Activist? It means that no ships are allowed into an area, with the concept that physical force will be used to deter any ships from doing said illicit activity. So, when you have a military vessel from the government that is imposing the blockade saying, "Please turn around, or we will be forced to take action," what should you do? Plow on ahead, claiming peaceful aims? Sure, if you happen to be a complete moron.
Do I agree with Israel's handling of the situation in Gaza? No. Do I think the activists that were aboard these ships are complete morons? Yep. So, both sides are wrong in their handling of the situation. There is no need to latch on to one side and say that they are 100% correct. The Israelis handled this situation in a fitting manner. The activists have legitimate grievances regarding Israels handling of Gaza as a whole.
The activists charge a naval blockade and then proceed to act surprised that they were boarded. In addition to their shock that they were boarded, they are absolutely dumbfounded that the Israelis used force when attacked. Now, this would be relatively understandable given the long of history of idiotic tactics in activism. This tactic of throwing yourself into a situation that is guaranteed to lead to physical reaction only works if the thing you are attempting is something you have every right to do. A black guy sitting in an all white cafe for example. This does not apply to charging full-bore into a loaded shotgun held in the hands of someone yelling they will shoot if you don't stop.
I wouldn't be too upset with these idiot activists if it weren't for reading this article. I wouldn't even be upset by the inability of the person interviewed to give any reliable detail other than, well, I wasn't armed. She couldn't speak for anyone else, and she wasn't even within view of anything that happened. The part in this story that upsets me is that this absolute freaking moron brought her one year old child along, because, to paraphrase, there are a lot of kids in Gaza and they were going to play with them.
I'm going to let that sink in.
That's right. This person took their one year old child and charged into the maw of a blockade thrown up by one of the most high-tech navies in the world, with the full understanding that something terrible is going to happen. Part of me wonders if she was hoping the child would die, because that would be fantastic publicity. Another part of me thinks that is crazy, that no one would put their child in harm's way. The latter part of me is incorrect, because this woman did it.
So, every time I hear the activists interviewed on the radio say they were attacked by the Israelis, I say to myself, "Duh."
Every time I hear the Israeli reaction, I think to myself, "Duh."
Both sides are full of people that don't understand the real problem. The Israeli government wants to continue to oppress the Palestinians. And if we didn't have issues like this, what would all of the abject morons do to put their children in harm's way?
Peace.
Tuesday, June 1, 2010
Sunday, March 7, 2010
Armenian Genocide
The US House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs passed 23-22 the resolution to define the atrocities committed against the Armenians in 1915 as genocide. Not a very big deal when you consider this didn't enter them into an exclusive club.
Countries officially recognizing the Genocide:
Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Lithuania
Lebanon
Netherlands
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
Vatican City
Venezuela
Not to mention 43 of the 50 US states recognize the genocide. There is also a smattering of international organizations, including the Turkish Human Rights Association, which recognize the atrocities as such. So why does this matter to the Turkish government so much? Why did they pull their ambassador back to Ankara to discuss matters further? It's a political tactician's dream, that's why.
A brief summary of why Turkey is awesome:
Turkey is probably the US government's most crucial ally in the Middle East. They are the only predominantly Muslim nation in NATO. They have the second largest military in NATO. They serve as a counter-weight to the damaging effects our friendship with Israel has in the hearts and minds of inhabitants of the region. We have one military base in Turkey, with the prospects of a second now dwindling.
Thus far, they have also been the most impressive in defying the US in order to retain their status in the Middle East. This is most surprising because, to most observers, they seem to need friendship with the US as much as the US needs friendship with Turkey. So, coming back to the question, "Why would Turkey be so upset?" Remember how I said that it was a political tactician's dream? Enter Azerbaijan and the Armenian land seizure of 1993.
Recent talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the return of a Nagorno-Karabakh, a province seized by Armenia in 1993, have come to a stand-still. So, think of this as the equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine for those of you who know your popular European history. It's a disputed piece of territory that both entities lay claim to. The Armenians currently control it, and you know what they say about possession and how it relates to the law.
So, Turkey has to play the bad-ass card once again and throw a fit about US resolutions. Not that it's anything new, see 2007 under G Dub. Turkey has been a stolid supporter of its ethnic brothers in Azerbaijan. This current event serves them well to stone-wall the normalization process and apply pressure on Armenia to concede to demands already on the table. Will the gambit pay off? Who knows?
Did the US know what it was doing when it decided to pass this resolution? In the venerable words of Alaska's own, "You betcha!" The US probably decided to play this as a gift to Turkey in order to highlight the situation in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkey.
We can't afford to lose Turkey, or Azerbaijan, as an ally. So we would dare not do something this dire to upset them. So, we must have done it so they could stand against us and show their strength.
Also, the difficulty the ruling in party in Turkey is having comes up, but I don't think that is as relevant since the Turkish military is becoming more and more democratic. The Turkish military, by the way, being the force that has truly created modern Turkey.
Feel free to post questions. Or just welcome me back after my brief hiatus!
Peace!
Countries officially recognizing the Genocide:
Argentina
Armenia
Belgium
Canada
Chile
Cyprus
France
Germany
Greece
Italy
Lithuania
Lebanon
Netherlands
Poland
Russia
Slovakia
Sweden
Switzerland
Uruguay
Vatican City
Venezuela
Not to mention 43 of the 50 US states recognize the genocide. There is also a smattering of international organizations, including the Turkish Human Rights Association, which recognize the atrocities as such. So why does this matter to the Turkish government so much? Why did they pull their ambassador back to Ankara to discuss matters further? It's a political tactician's dream, that's why.
A brief summary of why Turkey is awesome:
Turkey is probably the US government's most crucial ally in the Middle East. They are the only predominantly Muslim nation in NATO. They have the second largest military in NATO. They serve as a counter-weight to the damaging effects our friendship with Israel has in the hearts and minds of inhabitants of the region. We have one military base in Turkey, with the prospects of a second now dwindling.
Thus far, they have also been the most impressive in defying the US in order to retain their status in the Middle East. This is most surprising because, to most observers, they seem to need friendship with the US as much as the US needs friendship with Turkey. So, coming back to the question, "Why would Turkey be so upset?" Remember how I said that it was a political tactician's dream? Enter Azerbaijan and the Armenian land seizure of 1993.
Recent talks between Azerbaijan and Armenia over the return of a Nagorno-Karabakh, a province seized by Armenia in 1993, have come to a stand-still. So, think of this as the equivalent of Alsace-Lorraine for those of you who know your popular European history. It's a disputed piece of territory that both entities lay claim to. The Armenians currently control it, and you know what they say about possession and how it relates to the law.
So, Turkey has to play the bad-ass card once again and throw a fit about US resolutions. Not that it's anything new, see 2007 under G Dub. Turkey has been a stolid supporter of its ethnic brothers in Azerbaijan. This current event serves them well to stone-wall the normalization process and apply pressure on Armenia to concede to demands already on the table. Will the gambit pay off? Who knows?
Did the US know what it was doing when it decided to pass this resolution? In the venerable words of Alaska's own, "You betcha!" The US probably decided to play this as a gift to Turkey in order to highlight the situation in Armenia/Azerbaijan/Turkey.
We can't afford to lose Turkey, or Azerbaijan, as an ally. So we would dare not do something this dire to upset them. So, we must have done it so they could stand against us and show their strength.
Also, the difficulty the ruling in party in Turkey is having comes up, but I don't think that is as relevant since the Turkish military is becoming more and more democratic. The Turkish military, by the way, being the force that has truly created modern Turkey.
Feel free to post questions. Or just welcome me back after my brief hiatus!
Peace!
Saturday, July 11, 2009
Honduras
Why is it that the world has rallied behind Zelaya?
Because he was the democratically elected leader and technically what happened could be construed as a military coup by those people around the world, by world "leaders" mind you who probably couldn't even find Honduras on a map, let alone tell you anything about it's history.
Media outlets the world over keep using rhetoric to make the event sound like a military coup. Here's a question though: Doesn't the military need to take over and keep power for it to really be a military coup? This seems more like a method of maintaining constitutional integrity and removing from power and ineffective and unloved leader.
Micheletti isn't a new dictator. He just happened to be the next in line, and has thus far found approval from every branch of government and the military. There is also an understanding that he will not stand for election come January. He doesn't sound like a military dictator in the sense of past favorites like Gaddafi or Pinochet.
Then there is the popular notion that the overthrow was committed illegally. This seems difficult to prove for some. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order for the military to remove Zelaya from office. The National Congress duly swore in Micheletti after Zelaya was removed to Costa Rica (with no physical harm coming to the man.) So, we have the Supreme Court issuing an order to remove a dangerous leader from power... and somehow this is illegal?
It's not like they removed Zelaya because he was a populist and was attempting to turn the country into a dictatorship. He wasn't even popular with an estimated 30% approval rating. He was however attempting to thwart legal channels. A popular referendum is no way to change a constitution. There are too many things that can go wrong with them, for example- fraud, ignorance of the electorate, fraud and of course the old time favorite for democracies- fraud.
Now, we have an argument from some that is sound. They say that Zelaya should have been tried in court instead of being forcibly removed from office. That sounds great on the surface, but with elections coming up in January the remainder of his term would have been bogged down in legal battles. With the forcible removal, the country can continue not wasting a lot of congressional time trying to wrap their minds around the legality of Zelaya's proposal.
It was a bad idea to try and change the constitution. It was a bad idea to forcibly remove Zelaya from power. It would be a terrible idea to allow him back as president. However, the EU and President Obama are trying to get him put back into power. They are ignoring the mood of the Honduran people- most of whom say that while it was probably wrong to remove Zelaya, bringing him back would cause turmoil and it shouldn't happen.
On the sidelines we also have Hugo Chavez. He is rooting for the return of his pal Zelaya. There is even an underlying threat of military intervention. How would Obama react to that? Mr Chavez has already denounced the weak response by the US. That's a leader I can get behind. With one face he is saying the US needs to leave Latin America alone, with the other face he denounces them for not doing more. Ah Chavez, you make me glad I live in America.
But, with the help of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, it seems that there might be an end in sight. Arias is an amazing leader and I truly hope that a good biography of him comes out in the near future, in English mind you so we can issue it to students and tell them, "This guy is the kind of guy we should respect." He managed a difficult situation but it seems Zelaya will be allowed back into Honduras, but taken directly to the courts. So, I guess we won't avoid the disgusting legal battles after all. We will avoid Mr Chavez doing anything stupid militarily though. I hope.
Micheletti also removed the de facto Foreign Minister after he called Obama a "negrito." This is a derogatory term translated roughly as "little black man." In case we couldn't figure that out.
So, the changes that took place will stand, but Zelaya gets to be put on trial. He still won't be president, Micheletti will retain that position. But now Zelaya has the opportunity to be imprisoned. I would much prefer that than to having the world as my oyster.
Honduras is still struggling to overcome a crippling drug-gang epidemic and I think the populace will show that they want a strong leader in office the next go-round. So, keep your eyes on Honduras and look for the elections in January, because until then its just going to be one ridiculous legal accusation after another.
Peace.
Because he was the democratically elected leader and technically what happened could be construed as a military coup by those people around the world, by world "leaders" mind you who probably couldn't even find Honduras on a map, let alone tell you anything about it's history.
Media outlets the world over keep using rhetoric to make the event sound like a military coup. Here's a question though: Doesn't the military need to take over and keep power for it to really be a military coup? This seems more like a method of maintaining constitutional integrity and removing from power and ineffective and unloved leader.
Micheletti isn't a new dictator. He just happened to be the next in line, and has thus far found approval from every branch of government and the military. There is also an understanding that he will not stand for election come January. He doesn't sound like a military dictator in the sense of past favorites like Gaddafi or Pinochet.
Then there is the popular notion that the overthrow was committed illegally. This seems difficult to prove for some. The Supreme Court of Honduras issued an order for the military to remove Zelaya from office. The National Congress duly swore in Micheletti after Zelaya was removed to Costa Rica (with no physical harm coming to the man.) So, we have the Supreme Court issuing an order to remove a dangerous leader from power... and somehow this is illegal?
It's not like they removed Zelaya because he was a populist and was attempting to turn the country into a dictatorship. He wasn't even popular with an estimated 30% approval rating. He was however attempting to thwart legal channels. A popular referendum is no way to change a constitution. There are too many things that can go wrong with them, for example- fraud, ignorance of the electorate, fraud and of course the old time favorite for democracies- fraud.
Now, we have an argument from some that is sound. They say that Zelaya should have been tried in court instead of being forcibly removed from office. That sounds great on the surface, but with elections coming up in January the remainder of his term would have been bogged down in legal battles. With the forcible removal, the country can continue not wasting a lot of congressional time trying to wrap their minds around the legality of Zelaya's proposal.
It was a bad idea to try and change the constitution. It was a bad idea to forcibly remove Zelaya from power. It would be a terrible idea to allow him back as president. However, the EU and President Obama are trying to get him put back into power. They are ignoring the mood of the Honduran people- most of whom say that while it was probably wrong to remove Zelaya, bringing him back would cause turmoil and it shouldn't happen.
On the sidelines we also have Hugo Chavez. He is rooting for the return of his pal Zelaya. There is even an underlying threat of military intervention. How would Obama react to that? Mr Chavez has already denounced the weak response by the US. That's a leader I can get behind. With one face he is saying the US needs to leave Latin America alone, with the other face he denounces them for not doing more. Ah Chavez, you make me glad I live in America.
But, with the help of Costa Rican President Oscar Arias, it seems that there might be an end in sight. Arias is an amazing leader and I truly hope that a good biography of him comes out in the near future, in English mind you so we can issue it to students and tell them, "This guy is the kind of guy we should respect." He managed a difficult situation but it seems Zelaya will be allowed back into Honduras, but taken directly to the courts. So, I guess we won't avoid the disgusting legal battles after all. We will avoid Mr Chavez doing anything stupid militarily though. I hope.
Micheletti also removed the de facto Foreign Minister after he called Obama a "negrito." This is a derogatory term translated roughly as "little black man." In case we couldn't figure that out.
So, the changes that took place will stand, but Zelaya gets to be put on trial. He still won't be president, Micheletti will retain that position. But now Zelaya has the opportunity to be imprisoned. I would much prefer that than to having the world as my oyster.
Honduras is still struggling to overcome a crippling drug-gang epidemic and I think the populace will show that they want a strong leader in office the next go-round. So, keep your eyes on Honduras and look for the elections in January, because until then its just going to be one ridiculous legal accusation after another.
Peace.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
