open Democracy News Analysis - globalisation - Comments

nisaba on " Russia vs Georgia: a war of perceptions"

nisaba — Sat, 06 Sep 2008 16:51:18 +0100

In Georgia live, Armenians, Osetians, Abkhazians, my country isn't monoethnical, everybody, who lives there and is truethful, knows it, the Georgians live on this land from the III millenium B.C. Russia has no rights to make us divide our country into pieces. I have never had the existens of Ossetian or Abkhasian states on this land, how can you dare to blinden the world!!!!!

Thomas Christiansen on "Islamism and war: the demographics of rage"

Thomas Christiansen — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 22:07:55 +0100

Gunnar Heinsohn,s points of views and his scientifically statements have to be taken seriously by the acamedics. No doubts. Dr. Heinsohn is pointing to something which in fact has a "common sense" background. Give teenage men (monkeys) food - but no position and you create the groundwork for war, and turmoil regardless of ideology if they outnumber the older males.
Unfornutately this logical development is hitting Europe with full force in our time. Europe has all the probability for becomming a battle zone in the 10-20 years to come. Thanks to the "Euro-Arab dialogue" our countries are now being invaded by muslim immigrants. In 2025 - 25 % (at least) of the population will be muslims. A disaster in the perspective of Dr. Heinsohns. We see the tendency allready. Increasing rape and violent statistically.
Islam is NO religion of peace. Whoever says this - Mr. Bush includet have never read the Koran or the Hadith. Islam has been stopped 2 times in Europe,previously - in Tours/Poiters 732 (remember the Cognac - "Martell" ?) and in Vienna in 1683. The polish hero Jan Sobiesky won his medal.
Now we all have to join forces to stop the 3. invation of Europe.

Thomas/ Stopp islamiseringen av Norge.
www.s-i-a-n.com
www.sioe.com

Not logged in Lawrence Efana on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Not logged in Lawrence Efana — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 13:01:37 +0100

There is much to read in order to dilute and get closer to the heart of this article, which could not have come at a better time considering the eve of American presidential elections and the two parties involved with their respective running candidates and vice candidates.

As usual, it would appear to me that Professor Rogers always foresees, tells things as they are - especially the implications and challenges - quite often too, 'wise' warning signals, not in the negative sense but to truly encourage self-searching! If I am not wrong, what the responses should be are seldom prescribed in most of his texts - the work of a "professional"scientist: be as objective as you can: describe and explain but be cautious in passing judgments - it could be the responsibility of the "others"! In short he is good at paving ways for those who care to think and see what to do.

No bad approach from the scientist when serving policy-making agencies and technocrats and experts as well as the intelligence officials. Quite one of the good ways to work for change, which in general makes the contributions of commentators worthy of what they should be, especially when they are informed, clear and less cryptic.

Fortunately or unfortunately, the eight years of present US administration soon to end, has many loopholes to attract impulses over whether it has failed or not - as it seems it is the hour of verdict! Diplomacy has been dirty and clumsy and others have capitalised. Who? Can the diplomacy be cleansed that no one capitalises - presumably that all benefit!! Today's wars and diplomatic challenges increasingly seem different from past ones if we give 'renewed' thoughts about what the NUANCES are made of [I can still be corrected should I be wrong!]. I mean wars are not always going to be the solution to victory and winning hearts hence sustainable development and peace our greatest goal or objective!

Lawrence Efana [Finland]

Steven Rogers on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Steven Rogers — Fri, 05 Sep 2008 01:17:53 +0100

I don't see any reason to discern a "loose axis between China, Iran and Iraq". Certainly China will do business with Iran and Iraq, but they will also do business with many others, and if doing business makes you part of an axis, then China and the US must be part of an axis too.

Neither is there any visible reason to see this as a threat. China's interests in the region are very similar to those of the US. As a massive oil importer, China wants to see oil production rising and oil prices falling, or at least holding stable. That gives the Chinese every reason to want to maintain political stability in the Middle East. Given their own restive Muslim minorities, the Chinese also have no reason whatsoever to promote Islamic radicalism.

China and the US do compete, to some extent, but at the end of the day both are trading powers, both are oil consumers, and both are status quo powers - and that means their common interests are at least as great as their divergent interests. Prosperity in the US and Europe - the major export markets on which China depends - is very much in China's self interest, and the Chinese have no real reason to be rocking any boats. China's influence in the Middle East is more likely to be a moderating force than a radicalizing force.

raysimlee on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

raysimlee — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 23:51:47 +0100

Looks like the terrorist themselves is pointing an accusing finger on others. When USA and the west is terrorizing the rest of the developing world with its superior arm and killing machines it is putting a spin on the truth.

The world belong to all human beings not just the whites form Europe and those that occupy America after death and destruction of ethnic people (they are just as human as the whites from Europe). As all human are equal DO NOT use your 'human right' against other human.

Be human, learn to love. If you believe in your God at all, READ THE BIBLE.

FreeWest4Ever on "Byzantium: always an Empire, never a Nation"

FreeWest4Ever — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 21:21:56 +0100

The Byzantine Empire was a decadent and putrid shadow of the Roman Empire. Once the reins were handed over to the Greeks, more and more territory was lost, never to be regained.

They had no cultural inventions of their own.

Tom Paine on "Iraq, Iran, China: the emerging axis"

Tom Paine — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 20:57:47 +0100

The
transfer of authority in Iraq's Anbar province from American to Iraqi security forces on 1 September 2008 is an index of confidence that the situation in Iraq is indeed improving.

What does this transfer mean? Patrick Cockburn notes that 25,000 US troops will remain in the province after the "turnover" to the Iraqis.

US corporate media reports that the number of troops in Al Anbar will only eventually decline by about 2000.

I don't see how this can be painted as a huge indicator in how great it is in the province. Many here in the US see this as only Bush administration propaganda designed to impact the US presidential election.

andreea123 on "Tibet: looking for the truth "

andreea123 — Thu, 04 Sep 2008 19:24:08 +0100

The thing that I've always dreamed of was to go in Tibet, so see the tigers! Really, that's my dream! If it would be possible, I'd like to raise one. I saw a clip on utube, about a couple who raised a lion since he was little, but had to let him go in the wild, and afterwards they wanted to see his reaction after a couple of years.. and imagine what happened when they encountered.. the lion practically embraced them, it was a very touching scene..I guess it's gonna be a google massacre when people will start searching it.

Blythboy on "The global politics of climate-change: after the G8 "

Blythboy — Wed, 03 Sep 2008 18:02:32 +0100

I quote from Chris Brooker,

"The idea that the IPCC represents any kind of genuine scientific "consensus" is a complete fiction.

A gain and again there have been examples of how evidence has been manipulated to promote the official line, the most glaring instance being the notorious "hockey stick".

Initially the advocates of global warming had one huge problem. Evidence from all over the world indicated that the earth was hotter 1,000 years ago than it is today.

This was so generally accepted that the first two IPCC reports included a graph, based on work by Sir John Houghton himself, showing that temperatures were higher in what is known as the Mediaeval Warming period than they were in the 1990s.

The trouble was that this blew a mighty hole in the thesis that warming was caused only by recent man-made CO2.

Then in 1999 an obscure young US physicist, Michael Mann, came up with a new graph like nothing seen before.

Instead of the familiar rises and falls in temperature over the past 1,000 years, the line ran virtually flat, only curving up dramatically at the end in a hockey-stick shape to show recent decades as easily the hottest on record.

This was just what the IPCC wanted, The Mediaeval Warming had simply been wiped from the record.
When its next report came along in 2001, Mann's graph was given top billing, appearing right at the top of page one of the Summary for Policymakers and five more times in the report proper.

But then two Canadian computer analysts, Steve McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, got to work on how Mann had arrived at his graph.

When, with great difficulty, they eventually persuaded Mann to hand over his data, it turned out he had built into his programme an algorithm which would produce a hockey stick shape whatever data were fed into it.

Even numbers from the phonebook would come out looking like a hockey stick.

By the time of its latest report, last year, the IPCC had an even greater problem. Far from continuing to rise in line with rising CO2, as its computer models predicted they should, global temperatures since the abnormally hot year of 1998 had flattened out at a lower level and were even falling – a trend confirmed by Nasa's satellite readings over the past 18 months.

So pronounced has this been that even scientists supporting the warmist thesis now concede that, due to changes in ocean currents, we can expect a decade or more of "cooling", before the "underlying warming trend" reappears.

The point is that none of this was predicted by the computer models on which the IPCC relies.
Among the ever-growing mountain of informed criticism of the IPCC's methods, a detailed study by an Australian analyst John McLean (to find it, Google "Prejudiced authors, prejudiced findings") shows just how incestuously linked are most of the core group of academics whose models underpin everything the IPCC wishes us to believe about global warming.

The significance of the past year is not just that the vaunted "consensus" on the forces driving our climate has been blown apart as never before, but that a new "counter-consensus" has been emerging among thousands of scientists across the world, given expression in last March's Manhattan Declaration by the so-called Non-Governmental Panel on Climate Change.

This wholly repudiates the IPCC process, showing how its computer models are hopelessly biased, based on unreliable data and programmed to ignore many of the genuine drivers of climate change, from variations in solar activity to those cyclical shifts in ocean currents.

As it was put by Roger Cohen, a senior US physicist formerly involved with the IPCC process, who long accepted its orthodoxy: "I was appalled at how flimsy the case is. I was also appalled at the behaviour of many of those who helped produce the IPCC reports and by many of those who promote it.
"In particular I am referring to the arrogance, the activities aimed at shutting down debate; the outright fabrications; the mindless defence of bogus science; and the politicisation of the IPCC process and the science process itself."

Vassilis Fouskas on "The miscalculation of small nations "

Vassilis Fouskas — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 21:06:19 +0100

I'm not convinced by Fred's argument that the international context did not determine Georgia's behaviour. The dominant faction in Georgia's polity, the one who took the decision to invade South Ossetia, is wholly subservient to the US. NATO's and US security interests in the Caucasus are interwined with energy security and the safe transportation of oil and gas to Western markets at stable prices denominated in dollars. Furthermore, NATO and the US are interposing between berlin and Moscow, lest an understanding is developed between them, thus thwarting US primacy in Eurasia. Local elites cultivate nationalism in order to serve both US policy and their own bureaucratic interests and privileges

Donald Harris on "Open Britain"

Donald Harris — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 17:39:50 +0100

And How! Endorsed 100%

Brian Sporrer on "The miscalculation of small nations "

Brian Sporrer — Sun, 31 Aug 2008 10:29:00 +0100

[... edited ...]. No mention of all the lies told by Russia since the beginning of this incident. Bottom Line is this.... Russia has instigated problems in these regions from the beginning. How could their peace-keepers be allowed to stay with an the inherent bias they possess. Peace-keepers are supposed to be neutral. Lastly, Russia INVADED another country in the name of protecting ethnic Russians. This happened in the lead-up to WWII. Putin and his cronies are not democratic, could care less about human rights and a free press. They CONTROL everything.Further, they are the biggest hypocrites on earth. The protest vehemently over Kosovo's independence and then do the opposite? What about Chechnya?

blessdkrumheit on "The miscalculation of small nations "

blessdkrumheit — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 04:10:05 +0100

Fred Halliday's Article "The Miscalculation of Small Nations" contains a valuable summary of a historical topic. I intend to

download and submit it to archivist of the Bradford, Vermont History Club.

It is a strong argument against federalization, embodied in the

recent complaint of an Ossetian, "Why can't we have peace like under Stalin? And of course, the dissolution of Yugoslavia.

On the other hand are of interest are the arguments between Churchill and Roosevelt toward the end of 1944 about the Brits giving up the colonies.

Ian Bland on "Foreigners: victims or villains?- a political debate"

Ian Bland — Sat, 30 Aug 2008 00:37:55 +0100

Interesting comments but, as always, the liberal-humanist viewpoint is that man can be educated/conditioned out of aggression because we have now achieved a level of stability. This point of view is so facile I refuse to believe that it can be taken seriously. Science seeks forever to prolong useless lives, ergo the population grows, ever more reason for conflict for resources.

How is it right for everyone to have the right to live for ever and no-one to die? It will be a damn crowded world. Liberals do not seem to recognize that each ethnic group wants its space.

The policies which you advocate from you comfortable ivory towers will cause war and suffering on a scale never before seen. But you are serene in your beliefs as theorists: like Marx, your refutation will come many years after your deaths.

Not logged in on "The miscalculation of small nations "

Not logged in — Thu, 28 Aug 2008 19:39:00 +0100

[... edited ...]

The analogy that holds up is the crushing of Chechnia by Russia for doing the same thing as Ossetia. Big powers are hypocritical and small powers have no rights.Might is right seems to be a summary of [the] article.