Friday, July 6, 2007
Blogswarm
Do blogswarms work? Here's a cause where it's worthy to put it to the test! The AP needs to explain why they report thinly sourced (and later debunked) massacres and don't report on other substantial reports. Dean has more on the subject and is calling for the blogswarm. I'll add my audience to the blogswarm! Okay... so that's mostly just me... still, it's the thought that counts!
Thursday, July 5, 2007
Alliance of Democracies
I think NATO and the UN need to go away, however it is probably best that we don't abandon them. We should keep a nominal presence in both, and cut our monetary support of the UN as much as possible, and have its headquarters moved to some other country. I think the UN is too corrupt, and will be as long as it is dominated by non-democratic powers, and I think that will always be the case. NATO has served its purpose, but I have in mind a new organization that would replace both NATO and the UN in terms of function.
We need an Alliance of Democracies. Membership is only possible for those countries that have as law the equivalent to our 1st amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
About the only change I'd make is that all citizens must be regarded as equal, without regard to race, religion or gender.
Any country that doesn't allow religious freedom, free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the goverment cannot be granted membership. Any member country that passes a law abridging these rights will forfeit their membership.
Why make this the membership criteria? I think democracies (and by the above criteria, I amend that to 'liberal democracies') will have a much higher desire to form a consensus with other countries and will try to find all means possible to resolve problems, saving military action as a last resort. These liberal, or 'open' democracies allow for much more vigorous debate and will represent the will of their people much more accurately than those countries that curtail these inaliable rights. Such an alliance would not want to make war on another country, but if they did it was because all other avenues had been exhausted.
What is the function of this alliance?
1. Economic - by forming an alliance they could give each other favorable market standing so that trade between the countries is increased, helping the economy in the member countries.
2. Self-Defense - just like NATO, should one country be attacked, it would be viewed as a declaration of war on all member countries and they would be required to respond militarily to the defense of the attacked member.
3. Foreign Policy - the foreign policy of each nation will remain their own, but the group can agree upon sanctions (though I'm dubious if these have ever worked) and negotiations with non-member countries/groups. Positions towards countries/organizations that are hostile to one or more member countries would take priority. All member countries would be expected to maintain a military that is capable of contributing toward defensive and offensive capabilities.
4. Openness. I think the reasons for a country being denied entry to the alliance should be made clear to the world. I also think that any marks against a member country should also be made clear to the world. All evidence of a hostile countries acts against a member country should also be listed and backed up. Such evidence gathering and advertisement builds a case for war, which will either make it easier to declare war when necessary, or cause the hostile entity to amend its actions so as not to incur military hostilities.
This is just high level, I realize a lot more detail would be required - such as would voting require majority, super-majority, or unanimous assent? Would there be any veto capabilities? Consider this just an initial draft of an alliance I'd like to see happen.
We need an Alliance of Democracies. Membership is only possible for those countries that have as law the equivalent to our 1st amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
About the only change I'd make is that all citizens must be regarded as equal, without regard to race, religion or gender.
Any country that doesn't allow religious freedom, free speech, free press, freedom of assembly and the right to petition the goverment cannot be granted membership. Any member country that passes a law abridging these rights will forfeit their membership.
Why make this the membership criteria? I think democracies (and by the above criteria, I amend that to 'liberal democracies') will have a much higher desire to form a consensus with other countries and will try to find all means possible to resolve problems, saving military action as a last resort. These liberal, or 'open' democracies allow for much more vigorous debate and will represent the will of their people much more accurately than those countries that curtail these inaliable rights. Such an alliance would not want to make war on another country, but if they did it was because all other avenues had been exhausted.
What is the function of this alliance?
1. Economic - by forming an alliance they could give each other favorable market standing so that trade between the countries is increased, helping the economy in the member countries.
2. Self-Defense - just like NATO, should one country be attacked, it would be viewed as a declaration of war on all member countries and they would be required to respond militarily to the defense of the attacked member.
3. Foreign Policy - the foreign policy of each nation will remain their own, but the group can agree upon sanctions (though I'm dubious if these have ever worked) and negotiations with non-member countries/groups. Positions towards countries/organizations that are hostile to one or more member countries would take priority. All member countries would be expected to maintain a military that is capable of contributing toward defensive and offensive capabilities.
4. Openness. I think the reasons for a country being denied entry to the alliance should be made clear to the world. I also think that any marks against a member country should also be made clear to the world. All evidence of a hostile countries acts against a member country should also be listed and backed up. Such evidence gathering and advertisement builds a case for war, which will either make it easier to declare war when necessary, or cause the hostile entity to amend its actions so as not to incur military hostilities.
This is just high level, I realize a lot more detail would be required - such as would voting require majority, super-majority, or unanimous assent? Would there be any veto capabilities? Consider this just an initial draft of an alliance I'd like to see happen.
Monday, January 1, 2007
2006 in the rear view mirror
I'm not sure how 2006 will be viewed by historians in 50 years. Wars still rage in many places, and a nice roundup can be found at Strategypage. U.S. casualties in Iraq are down compared to 2005, though the media would be hard pressed to tell you that (they'd rather trumpet the number of casualties, as if that's the only barometer of how things are going). Somalia is being freed from the Islamist Courts, though hopefully this doesn't mean the return to the war-lord status-quo. A photographer for reuters was caught modifying pictures to make Israel look bad in its war against Hezbollah, and all his pictures were removed from their database and he was canned. A good start against the corruption of the media, but there's a long way to go. Has anyone f0und Jamil Hussein yet? He's the Iraqi Police Captain the AP has used as a source in a number of articles that no one has been able to verify - and no one has been able to find him since a question about his credentials has arisen. Rather than focus on finding the truth, the AP has circled the wagons - just like you'd expect from someone with nothing to hide... at least this makes it very clear that you can't assume any news organization is giving you the full truth. If it fits their agenda (i.e. Dan Rather), they'll go with it, and use the 'fake but accurate' defense if their evidence turns out to be fraudulent.
I hope that 2007 will see a further decline in wars being fought, and an increase in peace, freedom and stability. I hope we lose fewer lives in Iraq, though I know that if we become too shy about combat, we'll have more casualties there or somewhere else later because we didn't do the job right, and do it now. What should we be doing? We should always be re-evaluating and adjusting the plan to fit the circumstances on the ground. No plan is perfect, and no plan that is the best one for now will be the best one a month from now. The goal is to have Iraq be able to defend itself and assure its citizens freedom and equal treatment under the law, which means a democracy with a decidedly secular bent. If the Iraqi experiment works out as well as the American experiment, maybe the whole sewer of middle eastern corruption and terror can be rolled up.
I think the key to getting Iraq to the next level of stability will be to solve Iran. Will Iran's economy implode due to negligence of their oil infrastructure? Can we take a chance that Iran's own people will rise up and replace the mullahs before they get 'the bomb'? Will Iran make good on its promise to 'wipe Israel off the map' (along with whomever else happens to be in Israel on that fateful day) when they get 'the bomb'? I think they will. Is there any way we can support the people of Iran in toppling their government, and can we help guide the next regime to be a better neighbor to Iraq? Without Iran's support, will Syria fall on its own? We have found lots of evidence of Iran supporting the insurgents in Iraq - these are acts of war. Why aren't we treating them as such? Is our military truly incapable of handling 'maintenance duties' in Iraq while taking on another mission in Iran? Would the drop-off in support for the insurgents in Iraq (not to mention loss of support to Hezbollah in Lebanon) make up for the drop-off in troops we'd have if we moved them into Iran? There are a lot of intertwined questions that I'm not able to answer - and I doubt anyone can. I do think that Iran has been given too free of a hand and it needs to be called on its acts of war.
2007 also means that someone other than His Highness of Corruption, Kofi Annan, is in charge of the U.N. Hopefully his successor will turn that organization into something useful and worthy of trust - under Kofi it was nothing but a cesspool of corruption and lunacy.
I hope that 2007 will see a further decline in wars being fought, and an increase in peace, freedom and stability. I hope we lose fewer lives in Iraq, though I know that if we become too shy about combat, we'll have more casualties there or somewhere else later because we didn't do the job right, and do it now. What should we be doing? We should always be re-evaluating and adjusting the plan to fit the circumstances on the ground. No plan is perfect, and no plan that is the best one for now will be the best one a month from now. The goal is to have Iraq be able to defend itself and assure its citizens freedom and equal treatment under the law, which means a democracy with a decidedly secular bent. If the Iraqi experiment works out as well as the American experiment, maybe the whole sewer of middle eastern corruption and terror can be rolled up.
I think the key to getting Iraq to the next level of stability will be to solve Iran. Will Iran's economy implode due to negligence of their oil infrastructure? Can we take a chance that Iran's own people will rise up and replace the mullahs before they get 'the bomb'? Will Iran make good on its promise to 'wipe Israel off the map' (along with whomever else happens to be in Israel on that fateful day) when they get 'the bomb'? I think they will. Is there any way we can support the people of Iran in toppling their government, and can we help guide the next regime to be a better neighbor to Iraq? Without Iran's support, will Syria fall on its own? We have found lots of evidence of Iran supporting the insurgents in Iraq - these are acts of war. Why aren't we treating them as such? Is our military truly incapable of handling 'maintenance duties' in Iraq while taking on another mission in Iran? Would the drop-off in support for the insurgents in Iraq (not to mention loss of support to Hezbollah in Lebanon) make up for the drop-off in troops we'd have if we moved them into Iran? There are a lot of intertwined questions that I'm not able to answer - and I doubt anyone can. I do think that Iran has been given too free of a hand and it needs to be called on its acts of war.
2007 also means that someone other than His Highness of Corruption, Kofi Annan, is in charge of the U.N. Hopefully his successor will turn that organization into something useful and worthy of trust - under Kofi it was nothing but a cesspool of corruption and lunacy.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)