The Fog of Fear

The Telegraph in an article from Tuesday, 23 April 2013, warns everybody that Britain and US 'risk repeating Iraq invasion mistake with Iran'. Some would say it is a fair warning. But, is it?

"The same sort of lies and falsehoods are being uttered about Iran as were told about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction ten years ago, and in some cases by the same people."

Manipulation of some kind? Let us take a look at what they are saying.
I would expect a respectable news deliverer as "The Telegraph" to have a clearer picture of the recent past and of the present. The facts are that the Baathist regime in Baghdad had a history of hiding a nuclear program (maybe not at the time of the invasion, but they clearly had a history); attach that history to an almost continuous state of war, repeated obstructions to the IAEA inspection teams, violent suppression of  any political opposition (or, does anybody doubt that?) and a belligerent rhetoric, and you have a loose cannon. Up until now it is not complicated; the complications arise in interpreting all these facts, in developing policies to minimize, eliminate or quarantine the potential "time-bomb". Yes, they chose muscle over diplomacy, they fabricated, manipulated or misinterpreted "evidence" and they pictured everything in the color of "do or die". Divergent reports on WMD programs or connections to terrorist organizations, some of which were really far-fetched, were sidelined or disregarded. There was a huge media offensive in support of a "muscular" course of action. The psychedelic atmosphere was fueled daily, and we were fed tons of assumptions painted as facts. Some of us were able to see behind the smoke screen, but the vast majority bought the story and when majority was won, the ball started to roll downhill.
 Connecting Iraq with Al-Qaeda was a huge blunder; the very idea that a repressive dictator would support an organization that undermined his very own authority is ridiculous.
In the midst of comparisons with those times and those decisions, some are simply not capable of seeing through a new smokescreen, but this time covering the other side. Maybe out of fear of repeating past mistakes, maybe out of an incapacity to see the differences between Baathist Iraq and Iran of now, there is tendency of generalizing instead of analyzing. A generalizing attitude that would induce a a tendency to either put Iran under the same assumption that led to military initiative in Iraq or, on the other extreme, start from a set of opposing assumptions.

"Nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. But it would be very hard for them to do so. This is because the country is a fully signed up member of the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), has for the most part obediently respected its provisions, and continues to do so today.
This means that Iran's enrichment facilities are open to inspection by the International Atomic Energy Authority (IAEA), as are its other nuclear facilities. Over many years the IAEA has verified that no nuclear material has been diverted from these facilities for possible military purposes.
Most experts consider that it would be impossible for Iran to produce weapons-grade uranium for a bomb without being spotted by IAEA inspectors.
It is certainly true that the IAEA is currently in dispute with Iran over some of its nuclear activities. But it is not in breach of its NPT commitments, and here the contrast with India and Israel, both allies of the west, is so very striking. Their nuclear facilities are almost entirely closed to international inspections, and Israel is in open defiance of UN security council demands to make them available for inspection.
The unfairness (grotesque from an Iranian point of view) is glaring.
Iran, which has no nuclear weapons, is the object of ferocious economic sanctions and threats of military action. By contrast Israel (with perhaps 400 nuclear bombs and the capacity to deliver them anywhere in the Middle East) is the object of more than $3 billion a year of US military aid."

Indeed, nobody can say with certainty that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons in secret. Well, they (Iranian government) can tell us all if they do, and even more, they can prove it. Instead, they chose to point fingers at Israel (not that I agree with their nuclear program). Apart from that, Israel is not a party to the NPT, neither are India or Pakistan, so they are not obliged to report to it. DPRK has left the treaty too. Iran didn't.

The Point of No Return?

"Pyongyang, April 18 (KCNA) -- The Policy Department of the National Defence Commission (NDC) of the DPRK released the following statement Thursday:
An acute situation that has persisted on the Korean Peninsula since the end of last year is now putting the peninsula on the verge of war.
Much upset by the development, U.S. President Obama on April 11 reportedly stated in public of his intention to seek a negotiated and diplomatic settlement of the situation, saying that he does not want a war on the Korean Peninsula.
The chief of Chongwadae of south Korea, who is accustomed to currying favor with her master, let the "minister of Unification" make public a "statement". She even loudly spoke of "the authorities' proposal for dialogue to tide over the situation", a U-turn from her previous attitude of stoking confrontation. She used to say that there can be neither dialogue nor dispatch of a special envoy at present.
The rhetoric about dialogue raised by the master and the stooge almost at the same time is a political decision made by them out of their calculation that they can never bring the DPRK into submission with military threats and "sanctions".

Thought of the day 04.10.2013

"The enemy of my enemy is my enemy's enemy. No more. No less."
 Howard Tayler

LONDON — On the eve of a meeting with the Syrian opposition, Secretary of State John Kerry said Tuesday that the Obama administration was weighing “stepped-up” efforts to support the rebel fighters, and that such proposals had been “front and center” in administration discussions over the past week.

More: Kerry Says U.S. Is Weighing New Aid to Syria Rebels - NYTimes.com

Catalyst

Ever since the first signs of civilisation, men have fought. They fought over land, beliefs, sometimes even for fun! There are always by-products of war, two of them being the most advertised ones: Death and Suffering.

But conflict did not develop only plain death and destruction. Call me cynical but anyone can kill! But in war, efficiency is key! And here is where I wanted to bring the discussion: Efficiency! 

At first, it was all about tactics, but soon, everything changed; man has discovered tools, which combined with tactics gave you the edge in every engagement, and that made you more efficient, sometimes very efficient. First spears, swords, arrows, each a step forward, were not used only in conflict, but in hunting too, and hunting became more efficient, more easy... Fishing too!... Agriculture - tools made it, and made people settle down. Revolution started, and continues today.

Now, we cannot say war was the single driving force behind progress, but it was definitely a huge catalyst. The huge drive for better weapons, weapons systems, defense systems, intelligence, logistics, and management was, is, and will be forever a factor in development. Examples are numerous, from expertise in building defense systems which translated in better housing and structures in times of peace, to, probably, the most astonishing development that war was involved with: taming the nuclear power! And this are just examples of direct and tangible products, we can add development of systems (with Henry Ford as his apostle), and product design, technology, industrial process design, encoding... Aviation has made its biggest steps in time of war (World War 2), or in preparation for war (The Cold War).

War has been the additive in the fuel for the engine that kept evolution going. This article is not a cry for war; nobody in his right mind would wish for one, but we have to acknowledge its influence. Yes, we have death, the threat of death, we have genocide, pain and suffering, shortages and irrational behavior, and maybe just a drop of kick forward, but that kick exists, and once it was over, that kick became a boom, and from that boom, we grew stronger, with an insatiable quest for bigger (sometimes smaller), better, faster, smarter.

Sad, but true! We died because of it, we have evolved because of it, reborn from our own ashes, stronger every time!

Single Government

I like Zeitgeist, za movie! It was put together in such a charismatic way, with a lot of sarcasm used, mixed up with facts, historical interviews, and a lot of questions. A lot of questions!... and a lot of answers, some direct, some, well, not so direct... But, hey, it opened more perspective on some events, some of them crazy and ridiculous, while some quite serious and valid. I liked a lot the description of the Federal Reserves explanation, I loved the part about religion, and really loved the part trying to connect some dots about the conflict in Vietnam, and the two World wars. Also, the lobby for sustainable energy is an interesting part, but just a bit unrealistic, and plagued by omission. But, above all, one subject drew my attention, not only because it sparked controversy, but also because of the hypothetical implications over everyone's life: Single Government!


Now, Single Government,
as described in "za movie" is bad, really bad. And, the idea that a group of organized elite can push world politics in a direction they want, it's like Hitler believing the Jews forced the war upon The Third Reich, and only writing about it now makes me laugh. The whole noise about The Bilderberg Group, to me, seems like a paranoid hysteria of a bunch of drunken house-wifes with far too much free time. Yes, New World Order is a legitimate expression, but more into the changing of poles of power, rather than world domination of elitist few. Effectively, after World War Two, the antagonism of two European Powers (or three - including France), represented by British Empire (allied with France) and The Third Reich, changed to a  bipolar world with the biggest winners in the war: USSR and USA. This expression was used by many politicians in that sense, but Conspirational Theorists managed to extract the seeds of paranoia, as they can develop anything into a conspiracy. Oppressive, repressive, secretive and ruthless are the attributes given, and no human would be safe when they are in charge. That would be bad!...Really, really bad!

But, wait!...
Bad?!... Why, bad?!... Why does it necessarily have to be bad?!.... Well, it is, in the version presented to us! But it doesn't have to be like that. Lets just pause, and take things seriously, if only for a moment; when we talk about Single Government, we talk about a single structure, an entity if you will, with the sole purpose of human betterment, society improvement and global unity. What would be the benefits of this? While our most enlightened heads are working for cures to various diseases, renewable power sources, space exploration, explaining the secrets of the universe, our separated governments work for political advantages, economical advantages, remaining blind to the fact that the future should hold not world dominance, but World Unity. I know, it is like asking angels to have sex with demons, a utopia bigger than communism, but the advantages of it are huge! Think about it (and here, I mean about the ideal case), with a single government we get:

• A singe organizational structure to finance.
• A single, unified set of rules governing trade, justice, administration.
• No customs (stimulating trade, production).
• Uniform prices for basic necessities (or very close to uniform).
• No armies. Those huge amounts of money that fund military organizations (most of which having deterrence as a sole purpose), can go into research. No borders, no national interests equals no need for armies.
• Equal living standards (maybe not equal, but more uniform). That would mean a lot for poor Countries and areas.
• A single currency. Now, I don't know much economics, but I tend to think that one currency avoids many problems related to exchange rates between different currencies, with effects in inflation (if you are economist, correct me if I'm wrong).

There are other benefits to this idea that elude me now ( put them in a comment, if you find any ), and, I admit, some disadvantages. World powers will never relinquish their dominant position in the world, but it is because we do not dare to dream and wish such a thing, and some even fear it.

And, yes, it is daydreaming!
But please, let me dream! I thought this to be a good discussion topic and I have put my 2 cents in. I would love to hear your thoughts on the matter.

Building Faith

Faith. Religion.

Where do they come from? Why do they exist? Some might say they come from the sick but intelligent mind of one individual (or group) that had the insight and charisma to gather more weak minds to follow their beliefs, that religion exists mainly because humans, when faced with their own mortality, can’t admit to themselves that death is absolutely the end of everything the individual stands for; others say that religion is just the book of prejudice, where everything affecting us is the result of a pre-determined set of rules. Some, like me, tend to believe that religion is the first state, the basic form of social organization, the first lawmaker. To have a state you need two important things: Kings and laws. Whether we have a finite number of kings (gods), or just one, in all cases we talk about set of rules by which, one should live his life.  And to ensure this, we have the reward, thus the afterlife was created. Be it the Elysian Fields, the Christian Heavens , Valhalla etc. And to ensure continuity, here comes the institution. Call it Christianity, Judaism, Islam or Buddhism, they all are an organized monopoly of the spiritual identity, and faith is their engine, and as part of an apparatus, it needs building, with all its processes, from idea to design, implementation and commissioning, and from then on, evolution and adaptation that continue to this day. The worst adaptation, I believe, is the need for money (cause, boy, do they make the world go around!). The idea of using money to build instruments of faith (among other non spiritual assets) is the very sign of hypocrisy in the basis of a religious organisation.

Lets take the Christian example... preaching humility, love for thy neighbour... I dare you to go in Europe and find humility in any cathedral...among golden artifacts. I have to mention the Inquisition, and the control the church had over every aspect of life, and the toxic effect over the development of humanity (I wonder where would humanity be if people like Galileo would have been helped, and not persecuted). A similar phenomenon takes place in the Muslim world at present time. How did they grow so much to justify murder, forgiveness, love or hate, cry and laughter?

How come they still have power over us? Well, they do... many countries have a cut of the budget going to religious organization in one way or another. There are many countries where the number of religious assets far outnumbers the number of hospitals, or that of schools (sad, isn’t it?). In many countries religion plays a role in elections. The established religious institutions managed to take advantage of the political system, while being taken advantage of. In some, it identifies itself with the political system, and this is where the horror begins to unfold to its maximum intensity, and gives the worst example of religious establishments given free hand, starting with the Inquisition, persecution of Jews, systematic persecution or condemnation of great minds,etc and ending with the horrors that took place in Afghanistan, or the inquisition styled regime in Iran.

The worst crime is hypocrisy. Islam’s adepts claim it is a religion of peace, but its been brought to us in violence, and has violence and terror as instruments of control. Christians claim theirs is a religion of love, forgiveness and compassion, yet has a history of wars, conquering, oppression and ruthlessness. And it all comes from institutionalizing it, and by that, having  the power of organizing it went beyond the boundary of helping humanity deal with life to making policies.

I end this now, with the firm belief i haven’t said it all, that there are still issues I didn’t cover. I encourage dialog, and the comments will not be moderated. Feel free to add your thoughts, suggestions...

Live free and prosper!