We have seen in the past few weeks, a crisis in the global financial system not seen since the great depression. Banks not knowing the true value of the assets they hold have been unwilling to lend to each other or to anyone for that matter. This has caused a shortage of credit in the world markets sending them tumbling out of control. However as the above article points out compared to others in percentage we have actually lost less wealth. This coupled with the wide-spread belief that this crisis came from America has set the stage for something even more dangerous then a possible global depression.
The stage has been set for widespread demagoguery, widespread protectionism, widespread civil conflict and finally the rise of dangerous new ideologies.
In the Great depression we saw the rise of fascism in Europe out of the ashes of Europe's economies. If this situation deteriorates further and we do enter a true global recession/depression then we can expect history to possibly repeat itself once again. But this time we may not have the luxury of suffering through a long contraction while these new movements build their strength.
http://www.newsweek.com/id/163349
Pakistan's economy is essentially running out of steam, while Islamic militants build strength in the uncivilized corners of the country. If the economy collapses and either unstable Pakistan's generals or the militants seize power then they may very well have a final showdown with India and if during that war they desperately use their stockpile of nukes then that will deal a literal death blow to the world economy and possibly produce (according to some calculations) a miniature nuclear winter.
Which is something that we truly don't need to deal with right now.
Tuesday, October 14, 2008
Saturday, July 12, 2008
Thinking about Iraq and the paths we have taken.
Our debacle in Iraq has lately seemed to be entering its endgame that will result in some sort of tactical victory for us but at a huge cost.
This entire war many hold could had been a lot shorter had we made the right decisions right at the beginning and not made mistakes like disbanding the entire army and trying to make it anew.
Yet was a debacle in Iraq inevitable as the invasion which is argued in the link in the title?
Even if we had done all we could off too maintain the state and reform it, would Iraq still travel down the same road?
The state that was defeated was essentially broken by sanctions when we found it anyways so one could possibly understand why Bremer dissolved it and the Iraqi army.
Yet what might of happened had we not done those things?
The Iraqi army would of been able to at least keep a lid on the looting and all those wonderful things that happened across the country post invasion but would they of done it like they usually did with force and brutality?
The Iraqi officer core would also be cause for concern because they might of kept their shia and kurdish countrymen out of their ranks and cling to their power.
It is also doubtful that anyone could really have stopped Al-Qaeda and the rest of the foreign fighters from entering the country and without competition from the former Ba'athists they might of formed a large part of the developing insurgency and if they were pressed early enough might of incited the sectarian violence sooner.
It is also doubtful Iran would enjoyed a Sunni-dominated Iraqi army and would most likely support the Mahdi army and the other shia insurgent groups.
So it seems that in the end it is doubtful that we could of ever really entirely avoided all this bloodshed, even if we took a radically different path.
It really does seem that that because of the confluence of things that converged in Iraq preventing all the things was likely impossible.
Yet because hindsight is 20/20 there are plenty of other things in hindsight that could prevented plenty of bloodshed.
Had Europe stood up to Hitler WWII as we know might never of happened.
Had the Little Ice age came later or the vikings settled Greenland earlier North America may of been populated by descendants of Norsemen and we would be writing in a viking derived language.
Yet in hindsight I think that greatest opportunity in all of history that was missed was probably our ability to prevent the cold war right after WWII.
If we could of knocked out Stalin and the rest of the ruling clique of the Soviet Union at that time and collapsed it then we could prevented the whole conflict right then and there and established a true Pax Americana and perhaps a effective world government to boot.
Had this prevented Mao from taking power and possibly killed off Mr. Kalashnikov then the few million from the bomb and the aftermath would of been offset.
But we didn't because we aren't like that, we don't betray former comrades in arms after the most destructive war known to mankind. We were truly reluctant to become the leader leader of the free world as we still are today.
The consequences of collapsing the Soviets in such a way would also taint us in the eyes of the world, as would ensuring the Pax Americana.
So when we ask ourselves what our role is in the world and look with depression at the rise of the twin Asian giants of India and China who will shape the world we live in a way not seen since our own rise.
But remember there is only one path and that is that we take but we can take more then one path.
This entire war many hold could had been a lot shorter had we made the right decisions right at the beginning and not made mistakes like disbanding the entire army and trying to make it anew.
Yet was a debacle in Iraq inevitable as the invasion which is argued in the link in the title?
Even if we had done all we could off too maintain the state and reform it, would Iraq still travel down the same road?
The state that was defeated was essentially broken by sanctions when we found it anyways so one could possibly understand why Bremer dissolved it and the Iraqi army.
Yet what might of happened had we not done those things?
The Iraqi army would of been able to at least keep a lid on the looting and all those wonderful things that happened across the country post invasion but would they of done it like they usually did with force and brutality?
The Iraqi officer core would also be cause for concern because they might of kept their shia and kurdish countrymen out of their ranks and cling to their power.
It is also doubtful that anyone could really have stopped Al-Qaeda and the rest of the foreign fighters from entering the country and without competition from the former Ba'athists they might of formed a large part of the developing insurgency and if they were pressed early enough might of incited the sectarian violence sooner.
It is also doubtful Iran would enjoyed a Sunni-dominated Iraqi army and would most likely support the Mahdi army and the other shia insurgent groups.
So it seems that in the end it is doubtful that we could of ever really entirely avoided all this bloodshed, even if we took a radically different path.
It really does seem that that because of the confluence of things that converged in Iraq preventing all the things was likely impossible.
Yet because hindsight is 20/20 there are plenty of other things in hindsight that could prevented plenty of bloodshed.
Had Europe stood up to Hitler WWII as we know might never of happened.
Had the Little Ice age came later or the vikings settled Greenland earlier North America may of been populated by descendants of Norsemen and we would be writing in a viking derived language.
Yet in hindsight I think that greatest opportunity in all of history that was missed was probably our ability to prevent the cold war right after WWII.
If we could of knocked out Stalin and the rest of the ruling clique of the Soviet Union at that time and collapsed it then we could prevented the whole conflict right then and there and established a true Pax Americana and perhaps a effective world government to boot.
Had this prevented Mao from taking power and possibly killed off Mr. Kalashnikov then the few million from the bomb and the aftermath would of been offset.
But we didn't because we aren't like that, we don't betray former comrades in arms after the most destructive war known to mankind. We were truly reluctant to become the leader leader of the free world as we still are today.
The consequences of collapsing the Soviets in such a way would also taint us in the eyes of the world, as would ensuring the Pax Americana.
So when we ask ourselves what our role is in the world and look with depression at the rise of the twin Asian giants of India and China who will shape the world we live in a way not seen since our own rise.
But remember there is only one path and that is that we take but we can take more then one path.
Tuesday, June 17, 2008
Iraq is more or less over.
So anyways guys Iraq has improved a lot lately (a story that the MSM has been ignoring lately) and instead now talks about our recent troubles in Afghanistan. I would however like to talk more about the former for this little discussion.
However let me lay some points and ground rules first.
1. Please don't talk about the politics of the invasion and why we invaded and all that stuff because thats going to get us nowhere if we can't past that. Yes Iraq has been a rather large strategic blunder on our part but we can't change the past so arguing whether we should of invaded in the first place is a waste of thought.
2. Iraq is not Vietnam, in fact Afghanistan is far more similar to Vietnam than Iraq ever has been. Here a few obvious reasons why, firstly in Vietnam we only fought one group the North Vietnamese's communists whether they were guerrillas or regulars they still fought for the same thing and on the same side. Not so in Iraq where we have fought dozens of small groups instead of one large bloc. This has allowed us to play the old game of divide and rule that has handed Al-Qaeda in Iraq a major defeat.
In contrast in Afghanistan we have been mainly fighting the Taliban with few others groups in opposition to it. However the final reason it is not like Vietnam at all is because no one is backing the opposition groups like any of the superpowers did in either Afghanistan or Vietnam. Sure Iran is probably allowing its weapons to be smuggled across the border and maybe sends a few advisor's to help the Shitte militias become something like Hezbollah but thats nothing compared to what we or the soviets did in any of proxy wars.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11535688
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11540858
Feeling war Fatigue yet?
Ok, so on to the actual discussion.
I have linked to two articles in the economist for some background on the issue and if anyone wants more links I'll get some.
So anyways lately Iraq's government has been doing quite well for itself in fact
I might say that has even gotten a bit cocky after its performance in Basra, Sadr city and its campaign to finish of Al-Qaeda.
In fact it seems that even Al-Sadr the one who caused all this chaos earlier this year has been forced to disband most of his unruly militia so that he can maintain control over it and so that he can take part in provincial elections later this year.
The Sunni's in Anbar and elsewhere also seem to be quite controlled with all that support we have been giving to their awakenings movements. However Al-Maliki better make more moves to integrate them into the police and army soon lest he cause an actual civil war between frustrated Sunni gunman and security forces. I still doubt though that Iraq will return to the Chaos of 2006 because once a people have seen the abyss as Iraqi's have I doubt they would willingly return to it. They are also becoming more confident in the abilities of the security forces and have more hope for the future now then they did months ago.
But lately two main issue's have come to my attention concerning Iraq, first the SOFA agreement that is supposed to determine the future of American troops once the UN mandate expires this year has most likely been put on the back burner until the new administration takes office. The Iraqi's have refused to sign this agreement because they think it undermines Iraqi sovereignty which it kinda does, so we have been haggling with them so that they can sign it but they have sent signals that they would prefer to discuss with the next administration. However it seems that an interim agreement needed until a deal is signed to keep our troops in Iraq legal.
Secondly as this link below shows Iraqi oil production has been steadily increasing past pre-war levels.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/iraq-oil-update.html
Unlike many other oil producers Iraq has invited western oil companies to help Iraq modernize its oil-producing infrastructure and leapfrog production. This is really good news because not only have Oil prices been sky high lately but most of the worlds oil (75%) is under the control of national oil companies who for their host countries serve as piggy banks to fund military build up or lavish social spending. This leaves little cash for investment in improvements in technology or even maintenance of infrastructure. Which has consequently kept output levels the same for sometime now but can now no longer keep up with the demand of developing countries. Therefore by the law of supply and demand when demand rises (developing countries) and supply remains stagnant (no investment) we get a rise in price. So the reason why this is so important is that eventually oil and therefore gas prices should lower when more production comes online.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11454989
Ok that was a lot of writing, Wall of text is over!
However let me lay some points and ground rules first.
1. Please don't talk about the politics of the invasion and why we invaded and all that stuff because thats going to get us nowhere if we can't past that. Yes Iraq has been a rather large strategic blunder on our part but we can't change the past so arguing whether we should of invaded in the first place is a waste of thought.
2. Iraq is not Vietnam, in fact Afghanistan is far more similar to Vietnam than Iraq ever has been. Here a few obvious reasons why, firstly in Vietnam we only fought one group the North Vietnamese's communists whether they were guerrillas or regulars they still fought for the same thing and on the same side. Not so in Iraq where we have fought dozens of small groups instead of one large bloc. This has allowed us to play the old game of divide and rule that has handed Al-Qaeda in Iraq a major defeat.
In contrast in Afghanistan we have been mainly fighting the Taliban with few others groups in opposition to it. However the final reason it is not like Vietnam at all is because no one is backing the opposition groups like any of the superpowers did in either Afghanistan or Vietnam. Sure Iran is probably allowing its weapons to be smuggled across the border and maybe sends a few advisor's to help the Shitte militias become something like Hezbollah but thats nothing compared to what we or the soviets did in any of proxy wars.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11535688
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=11540858
Feeling war Fatigue yet?
Ok, so on to the actual discussion.
I have linked to two articles in the economist for some background on the issue and if anyone wants more links I'll get some.
So anyways lately Iraq's government has been doing quite well for itself in fact
I might say that has even gotten a bit cocky after its performance in Basra, Sadr city and its campaign to finish of Al-Qaeda.
In fact it seems that even Al-Sadr the one who caused all this chaos earlier this year has been forced to disband most of his unruly militia so that he can maintain control over it and so that he can take part in provincial elections later this year.
The Sunni's in Anbar and elsewhere also seem to be quite controlled with all that support we have been giving to their awakenings movements. However Al-Maliki better make more moves to integrate them into the police and army soon lest he cause an actual civil war between frustrated Sunni gunman and security forces. I still doubt though that Iraq will return to the Chaos of 2006 because once a people have seen the abyss as Iraqi's have I doubt they would willingly return to it. They are also becoming more confident in the abilities of the security forces and have more hope for the future now then they did months ago.
But lately two main issue's have come to my attention concerning Iraq, first the SOFA agreement that is supposed to determine the future of American troops once the UN mandate expires this year has most likely been put on the back burner until the new administration takes office. The Iraqi's have refused to sign this agreement because they think it undermines Iraqi sovereignty which it kinda does, so we have been haggling with them so that they can sign it but they have sent signals that they would prefer to discuss with the next administration. However it seems that an interim agreement needed until a deal is signed to keep our troops in Iraq legal.
Secondly as this link below shows Iraqi oil production has been steadily increasing past pre-war levels.
http://nextbigfuture.com/2008/06/iraq-oil-update.html
Unlike many other oil producers Iraq has invited western oil companies to help Iraq modernize its oil-producing infrastructure and leapfrog production. This is really good news because not only have Oil prices been sky high lately but most of the worlds oil (75%) is under the control of national oil companies who for their host countries serve as piggy banks to fund military build up or lavish social spending. This leaves little cash for investment in improvements in technology or even maintenance of infrastructure. Which has consequently kept output levels the same for sometime now but can now no longer keep up with the demand of developing countries. Therefore by the law of supply and demand when demand rises (developing countries) and supply remains stagnant (no investment) we get a rise in price. So the reason why this is so important is that eventually oil and therefore gas prices should lower when more production comes online.
http://www.economist.com/opinion/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=11454989
Ok that was a lot of writing, Wall of text is over!
Monday, May 26, 2008
Misson accomplished!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7411113.stm
Phoenix touched down on the Red Planet at 7:53 p.m. Eastern Time, May 25, 2008, in an arctic region called Vastitas Borealis or the northern polar plains of Mars.
They plan to do a variety of experiments to look for life and understand what the environment of the northern plain is like. However unfortunately barring a miracle Phoenix is unlikely to survive the harsh Martian winter and will be entombed in ice for quite a while waiting for someone to discover it.
So what do you guys think?
Monday, March 17, 2008
Wednesday, March 12, 2008
*facepalm*
This is what happens when you don't have a constitution.
You get stupid crap like this.
Nanny state, thy name is Britain.
You get stupid crap like this.
Nanny state, thy name is Britain.
Monday, January 07, 2008
Some Iranian knats tried to threaten three US ships.
Five Iranian speedboats of their revolutionary guard navy tried too threaten U.S ships earlier today.
Apparently it was just a feint.
But the crews of the ship didn't think so and were just about too fire their guns in self-defense when the boats sped away.
Personally I think they should of just fired on them too scare em a little so this type of incident would not happen again.
However it appears that when the boats sped away they dropped white containers into the water.
What they were, buoy's, trash or even mines is unknown.
Iran has the capability however of blocking off the straights of Hormuz with mines, which would probably cause chaos and steep rises in oil prices. So it makes a recent decision too retire the last of our minesweepers kinda stupid, don't ya think?
Apparently it was just a feint.
But the crews of the ship didn't think so and were just about too fire their guns in self-defense when the boats sped away.
Personally I think they should of just fired on them too scare em a little so this type of incident would not happen again.
However it appears that when the boats sped away they dropped white containers into the water.
What they were, buoy's, trash or even mines is unknown.
Iran has the capability however of blocking off the straights of Hormuz with mines, which would probably cause chaos and steep rises in oil prices. So it makes a recent decision too retire the last of our minesweepers kinda stupid, don't ya think?
Tuesday, January 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)