open Democracy News Analysis - global security - Comments

bjmaclac on "A tale of two paradigms"

bjmaclac — Sat, 27 Jun 2009 07:11:02 +0100

The most disturbing reaction I get from reading an article such as this one is the realization that only a very small percentage of those with the ability to read it, actually will read it. That which is stimulating to only a few, does not appeal to the infotainment tastes of the so-called unwashed masses. Our global political masters are simply filling the power vacuum due to lack of interest - or any sense of political empowerment - by the late, great mass of civil society. Now that the discourse on internal and domestic security (most elonquently articulated by the demagogues of political and social atuthority) has been effective in internalizing citizens' fears about terrorists and terrorism; and has most effectively marginalized various themes on civil disbedience, we now have a most obedient and less critical typology of good democratic citizen.

"So long as I stay within the security of my home saying nothing, doing nothing, while I watch protesters on the evening news getting their faces rifle-butted, I have nothing to fear. Politics don't really matter all that much to me. Best left to the experts."

aeionline_1 on "Iraq, AfPak, beyond: the global cost of war"

aeionline_1 — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 10:17:16 +0100

Paul Craig Roberts, writing in "The Waning Power of Truth", asks:

"What is the point of the war that the United States has started in Pakistan?

What is the point of the destabilization of the Iranian government?

After the stolen elections of the Karl Rove-Bush era, why does the United States think it must overthrow the Iranian government because of allegations that Mahmoud Ahmadinejad stole an election?

If the answer is that these wars and interventions serve the interest of U.S. hegemony, the obvious reply is that U.S. hegemony is more likely to be lost from the massive red ink in the government's budget that is likely to be monetized, thus destroying the dollar as reserve currency, the main source of U.S. hegemony.

If the United States wants to have an empire in the Middle East or elsewhere, the government should come out and say so. At least then Americans could revel in the glories of empire. As it is, the pleasure must be gained surreptitiously under the table, pretending that we are protecting the world from evildoers while we do evil ourselves."

http://www.creators.com/opinion/paul-craig-roberts.html

NYCartist on "Iraq, AfPak, beyond: the global cost of war"

NYCartist — Tue, 23 Jun 2009 20:05:02 +0100

Add in the cost to civilians in Af-Pak and the US, plus that the war toys aren't precise either. It's a bloated military. Chalmers Johnson's point that with empire, one can't keep a republic. I agree with Howard Zinn that there's no good war.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Iraq, AfPak, beyond: the global cost of war"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 17:16:48 +0100

Rogers thank you for this nice paper! The selection of President Obama was thought of and rallied around in terms of the lesser evil. Your series of articles must be on a reminding path of its hope not for one or the other reason to be thrown overboard.

Winning wars, eliminating insurgencies and notions of democracy would surely benefit from further research and analysis intelligence-work challenges towards a sounder advisory contribution to Heads of States and teams, more especially for the sake of 'cutting-age' policies and diplomacy. We live in changing times, your paper shows, so it implores learning about what that means for progress and peace, when the world is entangled in ways much more treacherous now than what we are used to.

"Iraq, AfPak, beyond: the global cost of war" could not have been better contextualized as puzzle-bits in armament, disarmament and international security arguments. The question naturally is also: What are the factors reinforcing a trend which the United Nations has long been working to break? Balancing answer to the question in technical and social senses don't seem to have provided enough room to re-evaluate the moral dimensions, more-so due to how politics is turned into a game in the process. The politics that 'woo' states and people into acts defeating and or subverting its very purpose [coexistence, peace and progress], must be seen sooner than later as meaningless.

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Iraq, AfPak, beyond: the global cost of war"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Sat, 20 Jun 2009 14:35:01 +0100

Not logged in on "Israel, the United States and Iran: the tipping-point"

Not logged in — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 23:18:48 +0100

This article was good...until it became time to make some conclusions... then the only conclusions it could come to was that Israel could start a war to help John McCain win...

Surely there has to be a more thoughtful conclusion then some half-baked conspiracy theory...

Seeker01 on "America in the Persian Gulf: a choice of futures "

Seeker01 — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 10:50:23 +0100

The more general arguments that the Obama administration could launch the US on a genuinely fresh strategic course go far beyond the immediate question of troops in Iraq. They focus on its determination to address seriously the related issues of climate change and the US dependence on imported oil. worlds best compost review, how to stop snoring at night

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "The SWISH Report (15)"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 12:06:22 +0100

The pieces don't make much coherent sense! From a commentator sideline, you see only "blurred" senses hence poorly tuned arguments. "But it was a 'duty' for Paul Rogers to report!"

At the same time, it seems fine when you can read between the lines and see something emerging: the wanted moderates in the hope that what it takes to find grounds for peace is gradually gathering momentum. A center political and religious position on the issues is likely to advance social and institutional reforms and bring about much wanted progress - the end result extremism can neither effectively bring about nor sustain]. Wise arguments are indeed seen in the report on the latter.

'2009' is yet with us. Why move swiftly to '2060', yet much ahead of us so far with nothing easy to predict?

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "The nuclear-weapons prospect"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 17:55:41 +0100

Rogers takes up a difficult theme and carefully, as well as professionally simplifies the challenges in order to raise hope, which is what the world and humanity need at present, thinking of the deadliness of the weapon system in question. On the other hand the actual reality is its risks as a weapon system are complex. Whether for peaceful use or use as deterent, non-proliferation is all the same a challenge. The danger is using it as a deterent and or bargaining resource in an increasingly conflict situations! What we see as stressful regional and international nuclear challenges of the day would advise taking the "do as I say, not as I do attitudes" serious. It is not going to be easy though, but might advance mixed promises to circumstantially curb proliferation efforts, exemplified by the named Latin countries and South Africa. Wholehearted ratification of CTBT and full acceptance of NPT are essential. For existing "higher-order" nuclear power countries continuous verifiable cuts in arsenals and functional reviews of "national security policies" are good-enough incentives in the process. It would not be wrong to draw attention to importance of a new attitude to psychology of understanding conflicts, and redesigning the diplomacy to manage them, well conscious also of avoiding post-conflict resolution failures: expression of a sound ability to deal with unforeseen consequences], including challenges of insurgents and "failed states" by Western definition.

These are obviously important too if peace is seen essential in our troubling international system where many nations have nuclear know-why, know-how and installations, able within the shortest possible time to make weapons and deliverable warheads. A manageable peaceful international system is indeed a 'sine-qua-non' and it would take honesty of purpose and commitment to bring about its state. In these senses, clearly many do agree that President Obama is working on necessary steps. His "D Day" anniversary speech recently in the south of France, made a great sense as the President, thanking all the forces that advanced and suffered casualties in conquering facism, found a space also to mention the advance of Russia from the North and lives lost for same purpose. Thinking of the psychology of a better world also means creating rooms, inviting and making sense with things that challenge - all for the purpose of coming together and managing our challenges together.

alfredo.bremont on "The nuclear-weapons prospect"

alfredo.bremont — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 01:32:58 +0100

president Obama must engage on a world (no nukes) new world order; arms in arms with Moscow, they in fact created this nuclear nightmare, they can undo it. just the two of them, German scientist present of course.

Israel, Iran, France , the UK, China, India, Pakistan, ( and anyone else) they all should be summited to the rules of non nuclear nations.. cleaning up this weapons will be, ecological, can solve the Turkish dilemma, can fix the middle east nightmare, and can even create jobs, salvage what is good of the capitalist system and used for the new world order system.

however you can still wage wars against each other democratically, but without nuclear devices. France can sell some non nuclear arm planes as well as Israel or India. just a non nuclear arms race.

that will please the arms dealers and manufacturers.

however no nuclear devices are allow.

for anyone, by diplomacy, sens, philosophy or force.

them you will have a civilized mayhem, that you can learn from, rather than kill yourself with.

buckyuk on "America in the Persian Gulf: a choice of futures "

buckyuk — Sat, 06 Jun 2009 14:38:40 +0100

At least he's making a consious effort to go out and get the problems sorted, hopefully it wont be too long.

There is always going to be link between the US, these places and the oil supplies. but like i said, hopefully it will be sorted soon.
Alan - elottery

Not logged in on "America in the Persian Gulf: a choice of futures "

Not logged in — Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:43:36 +0100

I think Obama can do it, his speech is already positive!
voyance

rcshreeyan on "A world in revolt"

rcshreeyan — Sun, 31 May 2009 16:46:50 +0100

rcshreeyan The world needs social system and great political system change to impower common people to finish off the defferences falsely created between rich & poor, man & women, this nation & that nation. From all over the world even big capitalist also wanted that world market should work free for all & the world citizens also wanted that the world should be free from any burden so that they can get the job & do their other work in free world. The present time is also indicating towards that goal. Big malls are being created by big capitalist in third world countries in a new fashioned. Which is making the common people socially come close to other world people and understand the vital needs of the world society which every country wants.

The democracy is at present working for the capitalist strong groups who have been backing the political system which is in return petronising the self interest of these groups constitutionaly. In this way the democracy & the constitutions of the world are favouring the small groups in their country to be flourish and control the administration and the soceity with their mass wealth show.

The world people today needs the REPRESENTATIVE RIGHT. The people have to use this important political right first to form the political institutions & work for the people. Voting comes later but first the representation of people should be established by the people's commisstion provision and in this way we would make our constitutions free of any out side party pressure.

Why the social system. Society is responsible of giving the free services to their people whether it is education, food, health services or building of houses or funding the business. The society should be run by the people and fund by the people. When this system start functioning only then this social system could effectively support the political system to fulfill the dream of people. The poliical system work is very less to look the social system if anything going wrong they should involve themselves to correct it. But the world government are taken all the welfare works to spread the false impression that the government can do the best to give people peace, security and prosperity but it all are coming out so untrue that people are weeping, hungry, dipped in poverty, disease, unempolyment, rivelry, racist attacks, criminality, terrorism & other kind of fears making their lifes unrespectable. So every body should work for people socially and politically but with great change in their mind.

Wisebills on "America in the Persian Gulf: a choice of futures "

Wisebills — Thu, 28 May 2009 19:51:06 +0100

We all hope Obama can find the peace and sort out this conflict. It's been going on too long - Wisebills

srheywood on "Climate change: a failure of leadership "

srheywood — Mon, 25 May 2009 10:22:16 +0100

"Comments and criticisms welcome,

Thanks

James Greyson"

Thanks James. Just signed up to WiserEarth owing to your link.