Furthermore, take the recent outcry in the Maldives where incumbent President Nasheed was forced to resign by gunpoint.  The follow-up and ascension of the Vice President was constitutionally sound; hence, internal manipulation and a legitimization of an effective coup.  What we have in cases such as these is an emerging trend toward hypodermic democracies; democracies by title and manipulation, but not by actual nature; a fact further complicated in that no reliable model for a democracy exists, no way to effectively export one exists, as seen in Afghanistan and Iraq, and democracy, and, arguably, in its finest form it’s nothing more than political utopianism.   Yet as Twain illustrates- “democracy is bludgeoning of the people, for the people, by the people.” A transparent, actual participatory democracy in these times would devolve into dystopia.    

Hypodermic democracies are further aggravated and induced by lofty concepts like national identity, which are entirely artificial to begin with.  The irony is that national identity, which is considered a solvent for conflict, has actually become a rallying cry for militants and armed groups, i.e. Somalia.  Militants use the concept of national identity to further entrench their movements and portray them, not as seditious or factional, but as an alternative form of national identity to that imposed on the populace by external authorities, i.e. the UN, attempting to solidify borders and keep peace. 

Combined, it’s all a bloody mess.  Democracy, national identity, and other political taglines used as objectives in stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq totally backfired.  Democracy is a non-tradition, national identity is irrelevant, and now, through reform attempts, both have become further utilities for despotic groups to justify either their regimes or quarreling.  The solution is to begin a global approach that doesn’t attempt to recreate antique concepts or powder up abstract macro-ideals, but focus on the actual: human identity and basic needs.  All else is without measurement by default. 

Superficially, a Third Way approach seems attractive to many people because it suggests moderation, the avoidance of problematic extreme positions and, hence, limiting the possibility of conflict. Many religious and philosophical traditions favour a middle position – Aristotle spoke of the ‘golden mean, for example, while the historical Buddha established by trial-and-error a similar position as half-in and half-out of human society by his rejection of asceticism as the sole means of approaching enlightenment. Research in a variety of fields indicates that people, when they do not have a strong opinion about a subject or reason for thinking in a specific way, will respond to uncertainty by joining a central position which is also occupied by many other people. A whole raft of discourse has been invented as a pretext for this avoidance of thought or proper acquisition of data, from ‘moderation in all things’ to ‘not rocking the boat.’ The dangers of mutely joining an apparent majority are evident from many dictatorial regimes of the twentieth century.

In the case of Third Way politics, the concept was to eliminate socialism as a means of transforming society – indeed, it abandoned any claim to transform society radically – and instead to rely on different types of ‘compassionate’ capitalism or ‘capitalism with a human face’ as a means of delivering not social justice but a sufficiently flexible means of distributing state resources to ensure the continued preservation of the privileges, wealth and status of the rich. The Third Way concept has of course been incorporated by the right wing into its ‘reform’ agenda that claims that the concept and practical details of social welfare belong to the now abandoned left-leaning past. It has been used as a supplementary pretext in some cases to justify slashing public services, privatizing state-owned organizations and all the other aspects of the neo-rightist approach.

However, there have been some more positive aspects. The changing demographics of human society, with its ageing and greying population, for example, requires some response with respect to provision for elderly people and their responsibilities to society.

BAGHDAD — Iraq executed 17 convicted criminals in one day this week, the justice ministry said on Wednesday, bringing to at least 51 the number so far this year.

“The justice ministry carried out (death) sentences against 17 people condemned for terrorist and criminal crimes … on Tuesday,” a statement said.

“The ministry is continuing to carry out punishments against criminals according to the law and the constitution,” Justice Minister Hassan al-Shammari was quoted as saying.

Last month, ministry spokesman Haidar al-Saadi said Iraq had so far executed 34 people this year, including two women and a Syrian. That is half the entire figure of 68 for all of 2011, including three foreigners and three Iraqi women.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Navi Pillay expressed shock last week at the number of executions, criticising the lack of transparency in court proceedings and calling for an immediate suspension of the death penalty.

“I call on the government of Iraq to implement an immediate moratorium on the institution of the death penalty,” she said.

“Even if the most scrupulous fair trial standards were observed, this would be a terrifying number of executions to take place in a single day,” said Pillay, a South African high court judge.

“Given the lack of transparency in court proceedings, major concerns about due process and fairness of trials, and the very wide range of offences for which the death penalty can be imposed in Iraq, it is a truly shocking figure,” she said.

The United Nations estimates that more than 1,200 people have been sentenced to death in Iraq since 2004, but it does not have comprehensive statistics on executions.

Death sentences in Iraq must be signed by the country’s president, currently Jalal Talabani, but the chief executive may delegate that authority to either of the two vice presidents. As Talabani is an ardent opponent of the death penalty, that is what he does.

Give me a break!  These people who were ruled by a corrupt, little weasel named Sadaam Hussein for “like ever”, now are ordering American diplomats to keep U.S. drones out of “their skies”.  I would suggest that President Obama send Hilary Clinton over there to kick some “camel jockey ass”.  Evidently, those two bit sand snakes have forgotten how we kicked the crap out of their “Royal Guard”, who went running for the hills at the first sight of the power and might of the American Armed Forces. How are military forces had to look through every drain pipe, sewer line, and hole in the ground until we found their “Supreme Leader” who held them captive for 30 years.  Or how he and his idiot sons played torture games with their own people, raping and beating their women and daughters.

Looking for good reads and HOT SELLERS?  GO TO AMAZON.COM, KINDLE EBOOKS OR CREATESPACE.COM AND PURCHASE HOT SELLERS LIKE: “TASHA-THE ASSASSIN WITH THE DRAGON TATTOO” OR “STACIE WILDE’S WILDE TIMES” OR “THE WILD RIDE” OR IF YOU WANT SOMETHING FOR THE KIDS TRY “JACK THE SURFER DUDE-THE BEGINNINGS”; “JACK THE SURFER DUDE-PART DEUX”; “JACK THE SURFER DUDE-HIT THE ROAD”  OR “JACK THE SURFER DUDE-HANG TEN” ALSO AVAILABLE AT WWW.YOUCANTTAKETHETRUTH.COM

Yet after all of that, some of those mindless flea ridden sand rats had the nerve to say they thought they were better off with Sadaam Hussein!  The American Government should immediately begin proceedings to initiate reparations to pay back the Trillions of dollars wasted on the two Iraqi wars.  Additionally, a Death Benefit should be paid to each American family who lost a family member in any form of service while serving in that hell hole.  Its not hard to do. We have all those worthless politicians in Congress, who can’t get along and try to do ANYTHING that benefits their constituents.  Put them to work taking back the money America spent on those worthless Muslim Bas—-s over the last 20 years. 

“The United States, which will soon begin taking bids to manage drone operations in Iraq over the next five years, needs formal approval from the Iraqi government to use such aircraft here, Iraqi officials said. Such approval may be untenable given the political tensions between the two countries. Now that the troops are gone, Iraqi politicians often denounce the United States in an effort to rally support from their followers.

A senior American official said that negotiations were under way to obtain authorization for the drone operations, but Ali al-Mosawi, a top adviser to Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki; Iraq’s national security adviser, Falih al-Fayadh; and the acting minister of interior, Adnan al-Asadi, all said in interviews that they had not been consulted by the Americans.Mr. Asadi said that he opposed the drone program: “Our sky is our sky, not the U.S.A.’s sky.”

Well, Mr. Asadi, Mr. Falil al-whatever, and your puppet Prime Minister Maliki, KISS OUR AMERICAN ASS!  YOUR Skies, give me a break!  You guys hid cringing in camel dung when the American F15’s went roaring overhead.  Now you are going to “pretend” to tell the United States to “Get Out”?  No kidding, when is someone in the U.S. government going to have enough balls to tell these rag headed Muslims to “Pay us Back” for all of the misery, anguish, and lives lost defending their “Civil Rights”? OH, Wait I KNOW! NEVER!!!!!!!!!!!

Image by The U.S. Army via Flickr

Kirkuk is an Iraqi problem chronic; its beginnings go back to the beginning of the formation of the modern Iraqi state. Most of the Kurdish revolution on the successive governments of Iraq has always aimed to achieve self-government and appointed by the city, the heart of the nationality of the entity and the capital of the dream.

Repeated uprisings of the Kurds did not produce significant result also did not lead the repression practiced by the successive governments to abandon the Kurds for their endeavors.

When he seized power in 1968, the Baath Party sought to end the problem from the root.Upon the signing of the Algiers Convention between Iraq and Iran, which ended Iranian support for Iraqi Kurds system started at the time the process to change the demographic nature of the city of Kirkuk by forcing Kurds to leave the city on one hand and lure the Arabs of Iraq from other provinces to move to the city on the other hand, by giving them money and jobs them.

The ready-made charges that some individuals may have fled from military service, or they may have joined the Peshmerga forces, or what they were called then Balasah enough to force the Kurdish families to leave the city to the other provinces.

And caused some small towns, particularly Kurdish or Turkmen predominantly provinces other Ksulaimanah and Erbil, including Chamchamal (pronounced smell Chmal) and Klar and Tuz Walton Bridge and blasphemous, which was affiliated to the Kirkuk governorate or province of nationalization during the reign of the Baath, while attached to Kirkuk’s Arab cities Kahoijh which was affiliated to the province of Salah al-Din .
This policy continued for decades, thus upsetting the balance of population which stained by the city through the ages, and increased tension between the components of the population of the city and how many were victims of those policies of large numbers of civilians

Obama’s speech on the state of the Union (the island)

The number of U.S. President Barack Obama in his annual State of the Union achievements of his administration, starting to withdraw from Iraq and the elimination of al Qaeda leader the late Osama bin Laden, to the achievements of his administration economic, while praised spring Arab, he stressed his country’s determination to prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, as he did not forget to renew America’s commitment to maintaining Israel’s security.

President Obama began his annual speech – delivered in Congress on Tuesday evening local time – by paying tribute to the fact that American soldiers are no longer fighting in Iraq and that al-Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden “is no longer a threat” to the United States.

Obama said in his State of the Union, which comes nine months before launching his presidential election, the mandate of the Thaana “for the first time in nine years, there is no American fighting in Iraq, for the first time in two decades is not Osama bin Laden is a threat to this country.”

Arab spring
He praised Obama’s speech “amazing transformation” caused by “Arab spring” and promising that America will stand with the democratic forces against the “violence and threat.”

“I do not know exactly when this will end the stunning transformation, we will support policies that promote a strong, stable democracies and open markets, because the dictatorship does not withstand freedom.”

On the issue of Syrian Obama said that the winds of change can not be refunded to the back and can not be a profanation of human dignity of peoples.

Iran and Israel
On the other hand, Obama said in his speech that the United States is determined to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and will not exclude any option for achieving that end.

He said Obama must resolve the dispute over Iran’s nuclear program in a peaceful way would still be possible if Tehran changed course and fulfilled its international obligations.

Obama also stressed the “firm commitment” to the United States to maintain the security of Israel, “The military cooperation between us and Israel is the strongest and we will keep it.”

Economic situation
In economic affairs, who has devoted the greater part of the speech, the number of Obama administration economic achievements in several areas, including on demands to reduce unemployment in the country, Obama urged everyone not to shirk their responsibilities under the economic system, starting from the top of the pyramid to the base.

Obama said “in the past few months we have created millions of jobs”, recalling that he and six months before he came to America lost about four million jobs.

“I refused to fall apart in the automotive sector, while some were calling to let this industry to collapse and fade, and today this sector returned the first car maker in the world.”

Obama stressed the need to reform the tax code, and urged the Republican and Democratic parties to work together in order not to impede the passage of laws that management deems appropriate.

Obama stressed the need to reduce taxes on companies that create jobs within the country. And that the administration will support the companies that create jobs and focus on clean energy.

Source: Al Jazeera + and agencies

As the United States armed forces are returning from missions in Iraq, there is a new air of war in the region. There is a new “enemy” that the American people is being told (by politicians) to fear. The new boogie-man is Iran. It seems that the last century had its own boogie-man, it was called “Communism,” the fight on communism led the United States government to install regimes in Latin America and remote regions of the world. The world was always in danger of being blown up by nuclear war, however, thanks to smart and visionary men like John F. Kennedy, the world still goes on.

As the last century came to a close and the Soviet Union fell, or to put it in better terms was dissolved and shrunk, the influence of America around the world began to dwindle. This is not to say that the influence of America in other countries has stopped altogether, but countries around the world have become more successful when it comes to fighting American interference. New forms of government and charismatic leaders arose to shake up whole regions away from American influence. The farther these regions try to flee from American control, the stronger the hold on the regions gets. It is the same song and dance that happens when the waters of the ocean are caught between the gravitational pull of the earth and the moon.

One of the greatest tragedies at the close of the last centuries was without a doubt the terrorist attacks of September 11. It was not only one of the greatest tragedies due to its death toll, but also because of the consequences that were felt world wide. This gave birth to the Bush Doctrine and gave a continuation to the American tradition of war by declaring war on Iraq and Afghanistan. The war on Iraq was deemed a preemptive strike, according to George W. Bush, it is acceptable for the United States to launch an attack against a nation that possess a threat to its national security. The war on Afghanistan was waged on different grounds, but the result was the same. According to the official version, the culprits of the attacks against the twin towers were none other than Al-Qaeda and its “leader Osama bin Laden.”

One part of the mission was to enter Afghanistan, stabilize the region, get rid of Al-Qaeda and capture or kill Osama bin Laden. Another part of the mission was to enter Iraq, find and destroyed its weapons of mass destruction and find Saddam Hussein. Hussein was captured and executed soon after the military campaign started. Osama bin Laden was free for at least a decade and then was killed in neighboring Pakistan.

Once again, it seems that those that wage war have forgotten that neither Afghanistan nor Iraq were new to war and invasions by foreign powers. The Russians tried and failed to take over Afghanistan. The British tried the same. America did not stay behind, but the war is still going on. The same goes for Iraq, although, at least officially, the war in Iraq is over.

This is where the Bush Doctrine has been used. Bush said that the goal was to punish those responsible for 911, the goal was to hunt them down anywhere in the world. Anyone who aided in the planning, financing or executing the attacks of 911 was gonna pay. Nations, entities, and individuals who harbored terrorist were going to pay. Bush drew a clear line for the rest of the world, when it came to the “War on Terrorism,” the whole world had to cooperate or be at risk of being attacked or invaded.

While the provocations between Iran and the United States seemed to be frequent, they were not grave. It was always the same thing, the United States was complaining that Iran is developing a nuclear weapon, Iran was denying the allegations, there was even talk of sanctions and more sanctions by the U.N. This changed in early October of 2011, when the news broke out about a supposed assassination attempt of a Saudi ambassador. The culprit, according to official reports, was a group of Mexican drug dealers and the mastermind was Iran. Then, this is when fiction takes control of reality and all clarity, there were allegations floating around that Iran was also responsible for September 11, not only that, but that Iran is a threat to America. This time, however, the allegations of being a threat are not falling on Iran alone, but also on Latin American countries that have closer ties with Iran.

This is only Part 1 of the US-Iran conflict.

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Paul got 21% of the votes in Iowa and 23% of the vote in New Hampshire and he is the only candidate other than Romney, who has succeeded well in both states. This is a sign of strength when the two states are very different: one more evangelical and social conservative, the other more moderate and conservative on economic issues.

Enthusiasm is high among Paul’s supporters. They are not only dedicated but also energetic and hyperactive on the Internet. They come quickly to his defense, manages his affairs, filling comment boxes everywhere, from the national newspaper’s opinion pages to the most obscure blogs. Paul differs widely from the other candidates. In the end, Romney is representing Romney and Newt is represents Newt, but Paul is not a conventional candidate, but more a political statement, a position, one thing.

Paul is not out to win and he openly acknowledges that he can not see himself in the White House. The other candidates campaigns are short-term business with the presidency as a goal, Paul is looking to build a movement. That explains his happiness after the outcome in New Hampshire. Normally, the losing candidates will play that they are satisfied with the outcome, but Paul’s joy was genuine to the point that he had difficulty concentrating for his acceptance speech. That he is not trying to win partly explains also why the criticism of him has so little effect.

Paul has every reason to be happy. He has spent decades looking into the political wilderness. At best, he has characterized as eccentric, his ideas have not been taken seriously and his supporters have often been described as something you would find at a Star Trek show. But now he has the chance to reach a larger audience and get their message out.

Paul has been a Tea Party activist for decades, that is, long before the movement was formed, and he is described as the intellectual godfather. The U.S. budget deficit, the soaring national debt and war weariness after Iraq and Afghanistan is an excellent breeding ground for Paul’s message and his libertarianism, which briefly advocated a minimal state and maximum individual liberty. Libertarianism has gone from being a peripheral business to now be a strong voice in a large established party. Paul would essentially take home all American troops that are stationed abroad, which many analysts considered an almost impossible position, also seems to have a certain pitch. Paul now appears frequently in national media on prime time and he is now respected by his victories over the other candidates.

Paul has two goals. The first is to make himself the leader of the opposition within the Republican Party. In a way, he tries to carve out a position in the party, like the position that Jesse Jackson had in the Democratic Party in the 1980s. Jackson represented a strong group of African-American and left-activist voters who demanded the attention of the Democratic Party. At the Democratic Convention was his speech massive attention and his presence overshadowed in some cases even the party’s various candidates.

Paul will not end his candidacy, such as John Huntsman did recently. He will continue right up to the Republican convention in Florida in late August. It will probably not go well for him, neither in the upcoming elections in South Carolina or Florida, but he and his supporters will not give up. The goal is to accumulate as many delegates as possible to the convention. If he succeeds in getting the second highest number of delegates, which he probably dreams of, he has a strong negotiating position to influence the convention and give himself a speech in prime time. Then he can finally reach out and explain their ideas to a wider audience before he concludes by declaring his support for the Republican Party’s candidate.

The Democratic Party’s convention this fall will be a strictly directed the spectacle in which Obama of course will hold the lead. The Republican convention may well be far more unfocused when Paul could play a major role. If Paul gets his numbers will the American people and the world to hear a leading Republican advocate for including the laying down of the U.S. central bank, the CIA, and several other agencies, a withdrawal of U.S. troops from virtually all over the world. In addition to this, he will also say that the terrorist attack on September 11 was more or less self-inflicted and that neither a nuclear Iran or the use of illegal drugs is any real problem for the nation.

For some this is a disaster, but for American libertarians, this will be a historic moment. After years in the periphery, they finally acknowledged and recognized!

Paul’s second goal has to do with the movement’s survival and future. Paul is 76 years old and he will never be the U.S. president. The motive behind his candidacy is more about movement and about his son than for himself. His son, Rand, who is 49 years old and senator in Kentucky, brought up right now to take over and manage all of Paul’s disciples. Rand is more polished and acceptable than his father, who occasionally gives a confused impression and also has a past that can be turned against him. Rand is better positioned as a senator than his father who only member of Congress.

Paul’s candidacy is thus to create a family dynasty, and to push the movement forward. It has been speculated a lot of if Paul would stand as an independent candidate. Paul, do this, he would virtually guarantee that Obama will be reelected, because basically only the Republicans would vote for him. My analysis is that this is not very probable, as it would damage not only the movement and his personal legacy, but also his son’s political future.

Paul would hardly be remembered as the one in which third-party candidate, who gave Obama the victory. He would probably rather be remembered as a man who uncompromisingly stood for libertarian principles, and whose movement pushed the nation closer to these ideals.

Image via Wikipedia

A year after 9/11 things were not going well for Osama bin Laden. He was in hiding and on the run. His organization, al Qaeda, which never numbered more than about a thousand, was scattered and in disarray. And worse in his mind, public opinion in Muslim nations and throughout the world overwhelmingly condemned his attacks as crimes and atrocities.

Nevertheless, bin Laden had a dream. In his dream al Qaeda would successfully attack the US a second time. Only this time it would be worse. More Americans would die and many more would be wounded. The attack would also deal a severe blow to the U.S. economy, costing a trillion dollars and plunging it deeper into debt. And most importantly for bin Laden, in his dream, public opinion would turn against the U.S. with many judging the U.S. to be a dangerous and war-like power.

Before he was killed in 2011, bin Laden saw his dream fulfilled. It didn’t happen exactly as he had imagined. There would be no one, big attack, but innumerable small ones. And many besides al Qaeda would do the killing. But the end results were the same ones he had desired.

The dream come true for bin Laden was, of course, the Iraq War.

Bin Laden must have been amazed. Less than two years after the worst attack on its own soil, the U.S. was taking its attention away from the perpetrators by launching a full-scale invasion of a country which had absolutely nothing to do with 9/11. Al Qaeda had no presence in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was in power.

During the years that the war raged on in Iraq, bin Laden was comfortably secure in his suburban villa in Pakistan. Al Qaeda crossed into Iraq to join the fighting and to recruit new jihadists. The Taliban steadily won back territory and power it had lost in Afghanistan. And out of the fighting a deadly new weapon was perfected: the improvised explosive device (IED), which continues to kill Americans to this day.

The Iraq War was a public relations bonanza for bin Laden. Here was the U.S. invading a Muslim country, halfway across the world, that had not attacked it or threatened to do so. Here was the American president telling the world with great assurance and precise details that Saddam possessed vast arsenals of weapons of mass destruction, and no weapons would ever be found.

And then there were the photographs at Abu Ghraib of Muslim prisoners being tortured and humiliated. Finally, there was the great suffering of the Iraqi people: much of the country in ruins, over 100,000 civilian casualties and 2 million refugees, all making fertile ground for recruitment.

Future historians will no doubt have a hard time understanding the Iraq War. They will wonder how the political establishment of Washington and the majority of Americans could support a war that so readily played into the hands of their chief enemy and made his dream come true. How will they explain that the second attack on America would happen in a distant land and could easily have been avoided?

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia

Image via Wikipedia