tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-72077588392326385802024-03-13T19:48:36.645-07:00CD's Evil European Political BlogCDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.comBlogger18125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-8223139458030118002009-10-09T11:18:00.000-07:002009-10-09T11:19:13.850-07:00Praising Hitler!? On my internets!?Now here’s something you don’t see any day: A leftist admitting that Hitler as a phenomenon did a lot of good for the world. First of, you want to laugh (I know you do). Or just get mad and foam at the mouth. But it needs to be nuanced. Hitler as an individual was at best a man with an incredibly narrow view of society, and at his worst a foaming madman wishing annihilation upon his own people when he could not have it his way. And for him to do good in a modern view in simply considered impossible. But this world needed Hitler.<br /><br />The crimes of the Nazi regime which Hitler build up through his forceful personality are so numerous, so repulsive and so divorced from both religious conservative tenets and liberal humanism there a people who will deny they were perpetrated because the thought of humans being so evil is downright scary. But that is the exact point: we need to see how humanity’s evil can be so destructive if left unchecked. And while we could do a lot worse than the holocaust and World War 2, because we saw what that got us we are reluctant to repeat it. Certain points of view held by the Nazis are considered evil today because they championed them. The very idea that some humans are more worthy of power based on their lineage has been rebuked a thousand times just by seeing the Nazis put that into practice and witnessing what became of that. Largely thanks to this the world overcame their prejudices against not just Jews, but black people to. Martin Luther King and Nelson Mandela would have been dismissed as trouble makers and revolutionaries or commie spies if their message didn’t contrast so well against racist ideals held by the Nazis and the bigots of their times and places. Same for war and its glorification. The pacifist ideal of non-violence would not have been venerated had Hitler not unleashed a deliberate war of vengeance and conquest. While the idea that violence solves problems hasn’t died and is especially strong today, those who favor aggression must thread more carefully or be called ideological extremists and nationalistic nut jobs like those that existed before WW1 and in Nazi Germany.<br /><br />Just as how St. George needed a dragon to slay, or Batman needs the Joker to track down, this world needs the occasional villain to show us how awful true evil is so we can recognize it. Without it, we lose sight of what is evil. Advocating a healthcare bill or campaigning against gun control isn’t evil. Being forced off your land because of your skin color and beaten by self appointed nationalists and war veterans is evil. Splashing acid in a woman’s face as punishment for not wearing a veil is evil. Dining in a grandiose restaurants eating salmon, roast hare and Dame Blanche while the whole population toils, sweats, starves, bleeds and dies while they are brainwashed to believe the outside world is clamoring for war and the destruction of their way of life to excuse the instigation of a major arms race is evil. Hitler puts things in perspective.<br /><br />Even so it seems insufficient at times. Said evil still occur with or without history to show its folly. But at least we can see beyond a doubt those who cause it are wrong. Sometimes people decide to look at the literal comparison instead of the spirit of it. Racism against white or Asian people is as wrong as it is against blacks. Murdering a Muslim through a complete disregard for their life and rights is no less indefensible as it was against Gypsies and Jews. Compelling other people to be patriotic of America or Britain is just as scary and wrong as it was in Germany. Some people willingly choose to ignore that, sometimes even fabricating excuses why “It’s not fascism when we do it!”.<br />Another bad thing that blurs the line is how easily some people resort to Hitler comparisons. Whether it’s Nauseum ad Hitlerum or Godwin’s Law. As soon as the word Hitler of Nazi is used in a discussion, it devolves into chaos. Whether or not the comparison was true or not. Fascism has some very simple definitions by which it can be recognized. According to Mussolini it is a union between state and corporation. But it also demands nationalism and loyalty. And claims to protect people from the evils of world Jewry, Communism, terrorists, religious unorthodoxy or The Terrible Secret of Space. Bad enough as that is, most people seem to have forgotten that Nazism is much worse and is exclusive to other cultures and races. Yet some throw the word around as if it can physically harm anyone with an opposing view. Hitler himself has become the weapon of the demagogue.<br /><br />Now I might be the last person people listen to, but if you have a chance to see a documentary or museum about National Socialism, hatemongering, Hitler, the holocaust and World War 2, learn from it. If you have time available, read up on the subject on the internet or at a library. But also study the underlying causes of these evils and see if you can identify them today, even in the strangest of places. There may no longer be Nazis in this world aside from rejects and restless idiots, but evil is not confined to the word National Socialism. It’s the methods, not the ideology, that is the threat to peace. Some are ignorant of it while they do wrong, others do not care as long as they can have a convenient defense for their actions. But think twice before you use the term Nazi or fascist. Even these groups deserve a grain of respect for teaching the world a moral lesson that has dissuaded many from following in their footsteps.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-76938221407928205742008-04-15T04:13:00.000-07:002008-04-15T05:02:13.344-07:00Why do scumbags win elections?Can someone tell me? As if Mugabe's manipulation of the vote wasn't enough, now we have Silvio Berlusconi at the helm in Italy again. I am quite sure some imperialist chickenhawks in America are relieved. First they get Germany from Merkel, then France from Sarkozy and now Italy back from Berlusconi. Goes to show that the corrupted surround themselves with other corrupt, pathetic people.<br /><br />Silvio is seriously the worst European postwar politician ever. Italy's second fascist leader. His ties to far right groups both legal and illegal go way back. Accusations of Mafia connections are rampant. He's had more corruption and bribery cases than Britney Spears had husbands. And the worst is: his terrible sense of humor. Apparently this guy thinks it's funny to compare a German critic to a concentration camp guard. I can't really see what's the laugh. Is this Italian humor or universal bad taste?<br /><br />Berlusconi escaped the biggest corruption scandal of Italy in the 90's in which politicians of all parties were purged by Italy's courts by just being more slippery than the rest of them. Since then he's had more than his share of corruption and fraud investigations. Yet he maintains his innocence. Only a fool would believe that. If you come home with a spat of mud on your shirt and insist you didn't play in the mud, that's believeable. If you come home day after day with mud all over you up to your hair, and insist you don't play in mud, you're unbeliefworthy. As a result of this, his governments have always been hostile to the justice system. Such as drafting up typical laws that enable immunity from prosecution for premiers and cabinet members during their time in office and after that. Laws like these are usually passed by rulers who have comitted crimes, have no respect for democracy, or know their cronies will remain in charge longer through these laws.<br />Although his hostility could also be a result of Mafia ties. The city of Napels has a notorious gangster problem which is hard to fight. Both for the police who are usually in a real warzone once the mobsters come crawling out of the woodworks. As well as for the judges who have to endure Berlusconi's ire and ridicule.<br /><br />Other examples why Berlusconi is a waste of oxygen, nutrition and h2o include his outrageous claims. Like "[ideological opponents] eat babies!". He himself said communists, Hitler used to say Jews, and the Romans called them barbarians. Still not convinced this guy is a fascist? He certainly shares the fascists disrespect for democracy like saying that anyone who votes left is stupid. If Berlusconi's right is so diabolically smart, I prefer living in my ignorance. Still not sure he has fascist sympathies? Should I mention the xenophobes of his north Italian political allies? How about the "Mussolini didn't imprison dissidents. He just gave them a long vacation." remark? Is this another Italian joke, or just an endorsement of fascism?<br />Also don't forget his sexist, chauvinistic remarks on women either. Like every lustful male I don't shun sexist jokes. But there's a time and place for everything, and Silvio broke the unwritten rules of modern chauvinism many times over.<br /><br />The good news is, this isn't much of a political victory. Italy's political system has been at an all-time low for quite some time and the people who still go out to vote either have no idea what to vote, or they have certain interests they want to guard through their vote. Just getting the majority of the votes doesn't mean anything in Italy anymore. The Greek word 'idiot' used to mean someone was apathetic towards politics. In modern Italy, the 'idiots' are the people who vote thinking it will make any difference, while the politically inclined know that the system is beyond redemption anyway and the most level-headed, trustworthy and intelligent candidate is mr. Nobody.<br />Add to that the ever present garbage heap of Napels that's even obstructing Mafia activity, the ailing economy and the inherent fragility of Italian governments and this new Berlusconi government will either be short lived, or unpopular from day one up to the changing of the guard.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-36133807502569008062008-03-17T16:12:00.000-07:002008-03-17T17:27:02.780-07:00It never fails to anger meIf there's something I hate, it's cowards who hide behind their ethnicity and religion and culture to pass themselves off as the perpetual victim. Because white men came up with the grandiose scheme of slavery to bring more inequalty and tyranny to this world, a white person can no longer criticise a black person without being called condescending, colonialistic, imperialistic, slave driving, etc. Robert Mugabe's power is build on this tactic. Whenever he needs to distract the sheeple from the apalling poverty in Zimbabwe, he pulls out the boogyman of arrogant western imperialists sabotaging proud and free Africa. I doubt this is what Martin Luther King, Nelson Mandela or Jesse Jackson meant when they changed the world for the better.<br /><br />But this time, regretably, the group using such cheap below-the-waist shots are the pro-Israel lobby. Criticizing Israel equals you wanting to see it utterly destroyed. How un-nuanced can it get? This time they took a really inlikely victim: a Dutch ex-minister named Dries van Agt. Van Agt is a conservative christian politician. A former member a conservative thinktankt that fell from grace when its leader alligned itself with a racist dumb blonde party leader (van Agt BTW left exactly for this reason). He peppered his speech with ancient words. And in his wilder years he sought out open confrontation with a social-democratic premier by means of denigrating comparisons.<br />But in 2005, he had a revelation on a fact-finding mission to Israel. He must have stumbled across something rotten while fact finding. When he returned from Israel he became an open sympathiser of the plight of Palestinian citizens. He's become highly critical of Israel as a result of being at the front row of where it's all happening.<br /><br />Enter Hendryk Broder, a Judeo-German political commentator who's know for his partisan support of Israel. He attacks left-wing pacifists by calling them anti-semitists. No constructive debate can be held with this kind of man. Van Agt's scepticism towards Israel has been noticed by Broder, as he's called him a christian anti-semite now. He based this on no other proof than that van Agt dared criticize Israel. I can now consider Broder another coward using ethnic background and history to deflect criticism and shun responsibility.<br />Van Agt fortunately seems well aware of this argument. It must be getting old. His response was that this was a well known method to silence critics of Israel. I must applaud him for his sharp sense and courage. His ally, Hajo Meijer, a Jewish Auschwitz survivor, is also a writer and critic of Israel. Broder has called this person of semitic descent an anti-semite as well. Screw you Broder! You don't even know who you're talking about. In contrary to yourself, Meijer actually <strong>witnessed </strong>real anti-semitism the likes of which you never experienced, because you're from the 50's! You're a blind man, trying to paint your brother as a racist when you are the only one who has anything in common with a true racist: sweeping generalisations! Your American counterpart is the partisan that claims his opponent has no patriotism because that opponent is practicing his right to free speech by questioning the government's leadership; the cornerstone of democracy.<br /><br />And Broder is not the only one who has picked up on this sham of a tactic. Desmond Tutu has also been called a closet Nazi when he questioned Israel's policies. I kid you not! Some of the most powerful allies in the fight to end Apartheid were Jews, and the freedom loving people of South Africa are indebted to these countrymen. But Free Speech as the price for freedom? Never! You would be right back at square one if you shut up because someone does not like his fault laid bare: paternalism, authoritarianism, fascism. The pro-Israel lobby must stop bullying critics, or they will become themselves what they hate most. It is very demeaning for actual victims of fascism and persecution, like Hajo Meijer was. The pro-Israel lobby is incredibly racist: it tries to maintain a distinction between Jews and non-Jews in a world that needs to grow out of judging others by their creed, skin colour or culture!CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-54477246960671775812008-03-03T02:00:00.000-08:002008-03-03T02:38:19.670-08:00War is DumbI have very little respect for Israel. There, I said it. Their military incompetence is mind-numbing. I don't mean their discipline, tactics, doctrines and superior firepower. I mean their complete disregard of strategy. If the whole terror bombing of Beirut wasn't overkill for kidnappings up two of their soldiers if not just a superiority complex that would frighten the most ardent Nazi if it had been the German people.<br /><br />In the last 8 years, 13 Israelis have died from rocket attacks. So what!? Excuse my momemtary disregard of human lives, but how many Palestinians have been killed by Israeli missiles? Really, stop whining you're the victims for Christian X's sake! If you'd do some basic math, you'd come to some shocking conclusions: 1) Palestinian casualties are higher and 2) Israel is totally winning on all fronts.<br />I suppose the bodycount of Palestinian terrorists and civilians versus Israeli soldiers and civilians speaks for itself. But to truly comprehend (or rather, be completely appalled at this senseless war) how much Hamas fails, let's look at it from their perspective. You can't understand the situation and problem until you look at it from both viewpoints.<br /><br />Okay, Hamas and Jihad continuously launch their Qassam rockets at Israeli settlements as repercussions. I don't know much about military-industrial prices, but let's say each rocket costs a hundred dollar (especially these fine, smuggled ones that come from Iran and Egypt). Every time the grand pooha of Hamas feels Israel must die, his lackeys fire over a hundred of these things at Israel. It's fireworks twice a year in Palestine. And they spend $10.000 on rockets on their shindig. Still, they are lucky to hit anything at all. These fighters and their rockets must be wildly inaccurate if they've fired thousands of these things, and yet only killed 13 civilians asside from the collateral damage, which can't be nearly as high as what these things cost Hamas. So let's get one thing established: terrorists suck as War of Attrition!<br />Have you seen the Israeli responses? They bulldoze villages, easily offsetting the damage to their (illegal) settlements. Their snipers can theoretically take out the command structure with one bullet, much cheaper than a hundred rockets. The helicopter missiles of the Israeli Airforce are laser guided and precise (so precise in fact, that Beirut is no longer standing, asside from the intended targets) and way more deadly that anything Hamas smuggles over the border. I don't know about you, but I don't need an in depth investigation to tell me Israel can, and is causing much greater losses both in manpower and in money value.<br /><br />In face of the hard numbers, there is only one conclusion: Hamas is losing, and they make themselves look like incompetent fools as they are doing so. Their complete lack of economic skill, even in the bloody world of murder and genocide, makes you praise the Nazis for their efficiency in this department. In calmer moods I'll probably condemn those Nazis for their lack of humanity and their great evil. But say for yourself. Compare Qassam rockets to Zyklon gas. Quiet, efficient, cheap, lethal. All the advantages with none of the mess! If the terrorists still can't see how they're evil, murderous and demonic for their war, and also not how dumb they're waging it by practically killing Israelis by throwing money as hard as they can, I really really wish we can see them as Darwin awards nominees. They seriously need to be exterminated to ensure nobody in history will be so gruellingly ineffective and stupid at warfare, or anything else! Jock off and die already!<br /><br />But the worst yet is that Israelis are actually afraid of such incompetent enemies!Yeah, so Qassam rockets are not the only means Hamas and Jihad have. Still, can't they see that Hamas is going to run out of funds at this rate while the Israeli army has more finances and better bureacracy? That every single weapon in the Israeli arsenal could cause more casualties than these 'dreaded' Qassam missiles? That their soldiers are much stronger? If they can't see this, they're just as dumb. And this was proven before, as they always take the bait Hamas puts out and go in guns blazing and killing everyone left and right, murdering as much and more than Hamas, just more effectively?<br />If these blockheads in Israel are so afraid of rocket attacks on their illegal colonies, just evacuate the darn places! You had no right to be there anyway, since you signed treaties that are either current, or have been violated already by both. Just abadon! Make it a buffer zone. And shoot every militant that ventures out of Gaza on sight. Those terrorists can't fire at anything out of range. And once they advance to get back in range and they're out of civilian presence, it's whack-a-mole time!<br /><br />There, I solved your little intifada. Now gimme my Nobel peace price and the grants your put on the heads of these soon-to-be dead terrorists.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-74111370775618807702008-01-22T04:11:00.000-08:002008-01-22T04:46:48.380-08:00Need a light?This may be a bit minor, but I'm a little annoyed right now by Stupid Traffic Law #4369: Automobilists must keep their lights on during daytime. The minister is planning to make this mandatory. It's stupid for several reasons.<br />1) It's one more example of the government forcing people to do things one way. Are you gonna get fined for this, just as you can get fined for not being able to identify yourself at any and all times?<br />2) It'll increase pollution slightly, and needlesly so. In a time when it's EU policy to avoid unnecessary CO2 emission this idea is quite counterproductive.<br />3) It will only increase wear and tear on the battery and the lights.<br />4) We already have a g****** ball of fire called the sun providing us with light during the day.<br /><br />The benefits don't seem to outweight the costs of freedom, reliability, efficiency and durability. The stated reason: this will safe a few lives. Ahah, sure. You know what would safe lives in traffic? To not stop for some Jack S fooling around but roadkill the sucker before he endangers any other people around him. It might knock some sense into people. But what mister Transportation Minister proposes is an unproven method of saving lives as he look at it too remotely and fails to see the details.<br />1) In countries that made this mandatory (like Finland) where it had an effect, that has to do with the fact that it's dark early and even in broad daylight there are more shadows. Plus the roads are often deserted there unlike Holland, the drivers there are not on the edge of their seats all the time, and less attentive, thus a visual aid like headlights will highlight oncoming traffic for them.<br />2) Bicyclist and motorcyclists claim that this increases reliance on the headlights rather than looking around personally for traffic coming from left and right and makes drivers less attentive. Since everybody is already using a TomTom, a driver is already pressed for time and attention.<br />3) Some other countries that made this mandatory report no decrease in traffic fatalities despite the conditions being argueably less favorable than in Holland. Austria sounds like a lot darker with its mountains casting shadows and many more forests, yet they still don't notice a difference.<br /><br />Like I said, the chance of saving a few lives (which is very unlikely) doesn't weight up to the disadvantages, however small inconveniences they are (which speak volumes about how neglegible the benefits will be). They should shelve this idea, then appoint me Prime Minister so we can start importing a big dose of common sense into the Kingdom of Politics from Real Life Land. Then I'll start scrapping a whole buttload of regulations and stupid laws, both national and international, that completely miss their mark.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-19620747125167615802007-12-28T09:55:00.001-08:002007-12-28T10:45:41.949-08:00Bhutto assassination conspiracyWith Pakistan in chaos for months and the recent murder, I knew I had to bite the bullet and write something about it. Not that what I say about it matters or makes any difference. I'm no Pakistani, neither do I know the politics asside from what the news tells me. And maybe it sounds crazy if I say Bhutto wasn't killed by terrorists, but I have a feeling the authorities are using Al Qaida and the Taliban as a scapegoat.<br /><br />There's no reason why it shouldn't be either of them. In fact, they'd throw acid in the face of people like Bhutto because she appeared publically without bhurka. Her political activism and ex-presidency is seen by those types and a threat to the male dominated societies they strive to impose. But they're simply not the only enemy Bhutto had, and not even the most powerful one.<br /><br />I prefer to blame General Musharraf. From everything the man's done so far, this seems like an act of desperation. People like Bhutto had been gnawing at his ankles with moderate success: he lost his post as commander-in-chief. The country's lawyers abandoned him, leaving him with just his obvious lackeys in the courts to perpetuate his fake democracy. The man who he stole the presidency from is coming back with a vengeance. And like Adolph Hitler, he's picked a fight with the wrong neighbour (Osama bin Laden) while he was already embattled and allied a Musolini comparison (Bush).<br />After 9/11 he pretty much hoped to win legitimacy for his usurped position as president by scoring brownie points when he joined the "War on Terror" hype by handing over a bunch of 'sand ******s' persecuted on thrumped-up charges. The poor sods now live in Gitmo without there having been any investigation into the past. Those that have returned are suspected for what they may or may not have done to deserve such treatment. But having shown his colours, he was marked by the Taliban and their allies in the indominable mountains in north Pakistan as an enemy of Islam. In a pathetic show of force, Musharraf's army was soundly defeated during an attempt to evict the dug-in islamists and the concessions he had to pay the warlords more than made up for the losses they led, and humiliated Pakistan in the face of the world. And yet the propaganda value of the defeat made the truce between Musharraf and the warlords only a military one, it spread word of the strength of the warlords to influentianable southern provinces accelerating dissent.<br />Bush's pressure on Musharraf and unilateral strikes by the US reinforced the message that Musharraf was not the man who would defend Pakistan. And led to the situation seen throughout the year. Conservatives fortifying mosques and Taliban allies taking over whole cities. Musharraf's retaliations have distanced him from his people who now seek his removal even while extremists are bearing down on the whole state. Bhutto was the only 'ally' he could make who was of any use against the extremists as she could calm the people who listened to her, but Musharraf was clearly going to lose influence as he couldn't lead Bhutto on.<br /><br />It's just a theory, but I believe he sacrificed her as a martyr to plead for solidarity from her supporters and point at the dangers of Islamic extremism in an attempt to secure the elections in January and rally Pakistan around him, using the ever present threat of terrorism the way it's been used in America and how Communism was used in the same way by Hitler and McCarthy. In this way Bhutto is clearly worth more to Musharraf as he will not have to fear an electoral victory from her anymore and if succesful it takes away a huge number of dissenters.<br />What does seem to contradict it is that the assassin was a suicide bomber. Governments like Musharraf's usually don't inspire the kind of fanaticism it takes to drive a man to murder himself along with his target. At the same time, Musharraf's government does have much greater reach and legal assistance for such a plot that the Taliban and her allies. The cover-up is pretty obvious already: blame terrorists for her death as misdirection and hastily eliminate the evidence. The fact that the killer blew himself up clearly doesn't allow an interrogation.<br /><br />Rather than risking a three-way civil war between democrats, government and islamists, Musharraf now only faces civil war between islamists and the government. Interesting how the death of one woman can mean such a huge difference. Is this the new JFK conspiracy of the century?CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-38061100548908630972007-12-28T08:43:00.000-08:002007-12-28T08:57:52.667-08:00Runts with firecrackersThere's a couple of things that never fail to piss me off. Like George Bush, flag-waving idiots or irresponsible snotbags with firework. I suppose it's a world wide problem, but every year I have to put up with some lardbags in the neighbourhood who light their fireworks long before it's New Year. Everytime I get startled by a loud explosion, I hope with a passion that moron just blew his hand off. I seriously feel like curb-stomping any idiot I catch with lighting a rod or a rocket.<br /><br />Just as I was reading the news about how the country was increasing police surveilance around the holiday season to catch these misfits, a Big One went off somewhere in the neighbourhood accompanied by the hysterical screams of an adult and little girl, accusing some pinheads who must have thought it was fun throwing their rubbish at people to watch them react. I also heard police sirens a little later. These sons of dogs will probably be forced into a week of community service. A little kid might now be handicapped for the rest of his life.<br /><br />Injustices like this make me savor every anecdote about fireworks justice I have. Like my schoolmate, a real nazi-rat, who lighted a cracker just as police come around the corner. Too frickin' bad my school was responsible for him, because I really thought he deserved his fine.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-23013229613466076042007-12-14T07:56:00.000-08:002007-12-14T08:48:14.444-08:00Balinese TreatThe news from the Bali conference on climate has been unsurprising to me. I generally shy away from hippie, evil corporations and Bush being a corporate pawn clichés, but it's like he wants us to think in those terms. Like always, Bush's administration moderates its tone when its critics are proven right, but it remains as unwilling to adress the problem. This time the US is unwilling to bind itself to an international agreement (again) that obliges it to interfere with domestic economy and CO2 output. Yeah, it is supported by Japan and Canada in this stance, but when you get down to it, you can scrap those of the list just as soon again since a) Japan has in the past already made such large contributions to cutting CO2 that it's really difficult for them to find anything else that could be cleaner without conflicting with a core value of Japanese: consumerism. And b) Canada is held hostage by a conservative government, so I do what I do best and blame those rather than Blame Canada.<br /><br />Bush's logic is always free market oriented when it's not really such a strong arguement. He wants to protect the market from cheap Chinese cars so he wouldn't be caught dead telling the auto industry how to make cars. I heard somewhere a Ford cars wouldn't pass even China's enviromental standards. Or he says the US cannot make the change without incredible effort. If so, I'd like to hear him explain why Putin had Russia sign Kyoto. You'd think the older Russian industry would have an even harder time than a country much richer than itself. Of course that is if Putin wasn't just out to score brownie points with left wing critics who care about enviroment and human rights in equal measure.<br /><br />What truly made Bush the laughing stock was his own little conference in Washington half a year ago. No bald faced liar could have humiliated himself more than that. His administration claimed it was leading on enviromental protection and Europe should follow <strong>their </strong>example. Sorry, but if the Netherlands followed that example I'd be typing this blog from a refugee camp in the German Alps now since our dykes would have broken like the levees of New Orleans. They then had the arrogance to expect other nations to contribute financial and scientific resources to improve the world. A cynic would say Bush wanted to rummage through the donations bin, pick out contributions he liked, and then throw in a half burned cigar and call it 'his contribution'. The rancid cream on top was a press statement by his lackeys, so they could cart the news teams off to somewhere so nobody would see the insulted and gravely disappointed delegation as it left.<br /><br />I figure there may be a few climate change sceptics reading who will say "why waste money on something that hasn't been proven?". Okay, so if a 100+ reports on climate change are not proof, let's take a hypothetical situation, hmm? Ask yourself what the enviromentalists (mostly scientists, greens and left wingers) stand to gain from being right, then ask what the critics (corporations, free market proponents and right wingers) stand to gain from being right. I can see no benefit for enviromentalists that are material, and they cannot be driven to press for such sacrifices if there wasn't anything wrong to begin with. The critics however, if right, won't have to make expensive changes to increase their efficiency and cut their polution, so for them it's about the money.<br />Still nor convinced? Well, let's say the enviromentalists get their way and we make all those suggested changes, but climate change isn't just avoided, but it turns out to have never been a threat. Then we will have invested huge sums of money in biofuels, renewable energy, hydrogen fuel and even fusion power, while water and air pollution is brought back considerably, increasing the health and welbeing of people living in industrialized regions, and forfeited any tiffs over oil trade while economically strangling a few brutal regimes that are only tolerated and sucked-up to because of their fossil fuel reserves. Not a bad way to be proven wrong, is it?<br />And what about if we do things the way Global Warming sceptics want it and they are proven wrong? Well, I'd hate to see what the world will be like then. I'd also hate to be in any redneck's shoes when he has to explain to refugees from Shanghai, New York or Amsterdam why he didn't want to make a little effort to prevent pollution before it led to global floods and other disasters.<br /><br />Ironically, Bali is an island in the Indonesian archipelago that is rather small and will probably lose significant amounts of land to the sea if it does not disappear entirely in the event of global flooding. My mom used to buy Balinese Treats at a baker but nowadays it's impossible to get those even at a specialized sweets baker. I estimate that if Bali is all washed up, they'll be even harder to get. We may as well call them sea snacks then, and I reckon if Bali is gone, we'll be having plenty of those here.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com4tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-30004516852642324202007-12-03T23:17:00.000-08:002007-12-03T23:33:06.531-08:00Take the NIE for a spinIt seems that once again the White House had the intelligence agencies dig up dirt on their enemies. This time it's Iran's nuclear program. The conclusion is that there is no evidence of a weapons program. Not in years anyway. This sounds contradictory to the things you hear from Bush and his cronies, who speak like there's no question Iran is close to getting the Bomb. Where have I heard these contradictory statements before? Could it be Iraq? Are we going to find out the hard way in Iran there is no WMD program as well?<br /><br />Sure, I don't trust Ahmadinejad. I didn't trust Saddam either. Both together still sound more reliable than Shrub does. There is something blatant about them that is as transparant as Hitler's ambition to subjugate Jews and lesser people, one only needs to listen to their speeches. There's no doubt Bush believed he was presenting the truth as it is when he talked about 'smoking guns' and Iraq. This guy actually believes what his hawks are telling him. And if there is one group of people who have shown themselves un-reliable, un-patriotic, un-American and un-sanitary then it's war hawks. They'll push for war if the whole world is against them. I don't know how they can lack so much common sense. Must have been the kinds of worms they were fed when they were but chickenhawks.<br /><br />So, Bush is pretty much set on invading anyway since so far there has been no change in attitude since the NIE. They only send out the spin doctors again to warp the facts they like to support their little adventure. Well I hope they do. If there's anything worse then being sunk into the mud in Iraq, it's being sunk into the mud in both Iraq and Iran! This should give those idiots a 2nd Vietnam. Take notes this time people, because that failed for a reason to!CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-15377921154345188852007-10-19T07:25:00.000-07:002007-10-19T09:42:21.383-07:00Hirsi Magan is a South Park carricatureHirsi Magan (formerly Hirsi Ali) recently made a scathing accusation that the Dutch withdrawal of protection is to silence critics. While I would not put it past some of the Dutch politicians, I can understand they're fed up with Hirsi's criticism. On legal grounds she no longer has a right to protection, but on moral grounds the parliament at least provided her the money to hire guards while she lived in the US (where the Netherlands has no responsibility for her). It was made clear this was only temporarily. Yet when the funding was finally cut she started to blur the lines claiming she didn't know. I knew, and I really couldn't care less about her security.<br />Some people will say "but the US government isn't obliged to protect her either!". No, but maybe her boss would have arranged some security. After all, isn't he the leader of the neo-con thinktank 'Empire Enterprise Institute'? I thought such a big group would have plenty of funds or security and the need to use them. If I'm mistaken that means fortunately neo-conservatism is dying. But if EEI is just unwilling, that makes me think they want Hirsi Magan as their martyr, since Islamic Fundamentalism have the edge in this department. Time for the Islamophobes to catch up.<br /><br />It seems Denmark has taken the Trojan Horse by offering her support. Seriously people, if you don't want another Jyland Posten riot, <strong>distance yourselves from Hirsi Magan</strong>! They say the Dutch government wants her out of the way, because she's become a nuisance to them. I totally agree. We have ourselves a situation here which we are trying to solve. First we get 9/11, but we could handle that. Fortuyn opened the wound. Then America compounds it by started a totally irrelevant war in Iraq and the stupid government did not oppose it. Then they kill Theo van Gogh. And finally, we get the fascist Geert Wilders spreading yet more hate. The last we need is Hirsi Magan in our country.<br />Yes, I do pity her somewhat. If she hadn't been raised as a Wahibi Muslim, her view of Islam may have been more moderate now. But while she supported the Fatwa on the author of "The Satanic Verses" in her youth, she now makes the equally insulting and threatening statements like "Mohammed is a pedo" and used the <em>reductio ad hitlerum</em> on him as well. Yeah, I know, they're statements by others, but you can bet Hirsi Magan thinks the same way. I do support her right to free speech, but she's just not using it to contribute anything useful. And the former government which fell because of her citizenship handled it all very poorly, especially her own party. But she can't feel bad, Labour is currently doing the same to an equally intolerant Islam critic.<br /><br />But I simply wouldn't want to see another tax euro paid by me to be spend on her protection. She is putting this country in danger by formenting a split between Dutch and Muslims, and she does it with the same fevor as the Hofstad Groep terrorist gang. We need to root out extremists and take away their supportbase, not make potential recruits for them more suspicious of Dutch society or start persecuting Muslims.<br />Seriously, Hirsi's criticism sounds like a bad carricature like those on satirical cartoons like South Park or Drawn together. She's like the poo-talking atheists who say Christianity is a dangerous religion and spreads intolerance, and at the same time discuss how to best eliminate Christianity as they puke excrements out of their mouths. She's like the smug fart-smelling enviromentalists who trade in their cars for hybrids to contribute to the enviroment, but alienate and humiliate those who have not switched to cleaner cars. Or like the hippies who accuse the corporations of being all corporaty and organise a useless sit-in and music festival to fight the power.<br />Islam is Hirsi's Christianity. Atheism is her hybrid car. And her pointless insults are counterproductive like a sit-in about music instead of protesting corporations. Just what <strong>is</strong> the point to it? Same goes for Jami who founded a comittie for ex-Muslims. Help protect the disenchanted Muslims, don't accuse their fellow brothers of abusing the dissenters when it's the radical groups who do most of the abusing. You're not making yourselfs more popular with sceptical Muslims by calling them cultists and fools. If that's how you're treating the moderates and progressives of the group, you're taking away their incentitive to change, since they're going to be hated anyway. Why not hate back then?<br />Atheism is an intolerant religion. Replace words like 'zealot', 'inquisition' and 'crusader' with atheist terms, and you'll have a very shameful stereotype that reminds you of Christians at times. But don't feel bad atheists, you'll fit in snugly with all the other Abrahamic cults.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-61986598484129941662007-10-17T15:56:00.000-07:002007-10-17T16:54:25.717-07:00Fudge Srebrenica!One of my continuing peeves is people blaming Dutch soldiers in Srebrenica for the massacre there. They are free of blame, they're heroes, they hurt nobody. I support these statements based on three simple facts: A) they Serbs killed the Bosnians, there are your murderers. B) Very few people could have endured in the terrible situation Srebrenica was in during the siege and stayed until the chips were down, not even Bosnia's own military which fled before the Dutchbat soldiers did. C) No incidents of friendly fire are reported with Dutch soldiers firing on allies (plenty of reports of Bosnians firing on Dutch troops though).<br /><br />Really, Bosnians shouldn't whine so much. The fact is, the Dutch were willing to go there and try to stop the chaos, against an enemy who's ruthlesness wasn't even fully understood yet. They picked the worst defendable town and hoped to set a good example. Hopefully other NATO countries would follow. They did not, NATO and the UN abandoned the meagre force in Srebrenica while it was blatantly obvious the Dutch force was not defending, it was just a start. Srebrenica was actually a lost cause from the start with just 400 men. I apoligize to the people of Bosnia if we went into the breach to save your people from a genocidal, rampaging general even though his army had been underestimated. I know now that the people who stand up for a righteous cause get screwed pretty painfully.<br />And I know Bosnians aren't Christian (or most of them) and you might not have heard of it, but remember the ancient wisdom: "He who is without sin casts the first stone". Bosnians residents tried to gather food from local farming towns. Serbian farming towns. The escorts these gatherers got were armed. The Serbs did not trust them (and who would trust an armed company of men saying they're there to collect your food?). So most of these trips ended up as bloodbaths. Whoever put the Bosnians in the victim role clearly wants to make sense of the Balkan where there are no good or bad guys. This is not like WW2 with two sides: one evil and one not evil. There is a lot of rivalry, defensive nationalism, state nationalism and religious intolerance all over the region which has much to do with conflict dating back to the time of the Habsburg Austrian Empire and the Ottoman Sultanate. This is a region full of loonies that are responsible for mind boggling wars and attrocities.<br />And who is going to be surprised they ran? There was no fuel, no food, no water. Any sane person would have fled already. High command did little to alleviate the problems, so the soldiers had been deserted by their officers for once. What's worse is that the only fatal attack on Dutch troops came from the Bosnian army, not the Serbians! Seriously, if these are the kind of people you are defending, they next time they need help I say we ignore them even if it was the devil himself bringing his reign on earth starting with Sarajevo.<br />Do I blame the French and British for not having been able to prevent the Netherlands from falling to the German army resulting in five long years of fear, starvation and murder? I blame only Adolf Hitler and anyone who believed in that sociopathic dogma called National Socialism. Why then are Bosnians blaming Dutch troops why tried to help, but were severely outmatched, just like the Allies back then?<br /><br />Yes, I know people are going to bring up Colonel Karremans. He might be a flip-flopping coward, but a whole company doesn't have to suffer for that right? I know being a soldier is a big responsibility. But nobody should carry responsibility for the maniacal reign of violence caused by the Serbian forces besides those part of it. I think even a lot of Serbs are not strong enough to bear such a burden.<br />If it makes up for it, at least the Republika Srpska acknowledges the attrocity in Srebrenica. And it along with Serbia see the warcriminals involved as a liability now, which means there is hope for a coming to terms. Have the Bosnians ever apoligized for the much less important skirmishes between civilians? Minor attrocities would seem easier to come clean about I'd think.<br /><br />If you ask me, that fudging country is good for only one things: Ion cannon strikes!CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-54308445947929379912007-10-11T01:40:00.000-07:002007-10-11T02:17:42.402-07:00On the verge of an Turko-Iraq war?I hope so. I can't say I like either country on a political level. The only ethnic group in Iraq which I believe you can make deals with are Kurds. Sunnis on average still are the most sympathetic to Saddam Hussein, and a Sunni dominated Iraq would thus be little but a regime change, and hardly democratic to the other groups. Shi'ites may seem like a nice group to support being the victims of Saddam and all. But this is as dangerous as liberating Israel for Jews solely because of Adolf Hitler. The Shi'ites are on good terms with Iran. I'm not an Iran-bashing type, but their theocratic government is no way to model a country. Not Iran, not Iraq. But the Shi'ites seem more inclined to form a theocracy in Iraq.<br />Ruling these out, you're left with the Kurds, and they are at least as sticky. There are Kurdish minorities all around the region. Not just Iraq and Turkey. I think Iran and Syria would want to have a say in the whole Kurdish problem. The west would lose their allies Turkey and Iraq and gain a fledgling ally in the region. One that would even be very hard to defend against enemies from all sides.<br /><br />My previous evils analysis of Iraq goes to Turkey as well, in a way. Just months ago everybody was protesting the Islamization of Turkey by Gul and Erdogan, especially the Turkish military. In the west, military involvement in politics is viewed with great suspicion, and rightly so. But Turkey's military maintains strong ties to the past and specifically Kemal Ataturk, the first president and a secularist. Since Islamization is distrusted by the west to, the Turkish military would sound like 'the enemy of my enemy'.<br />But it's more complicated. While Erdogan has proven to be a genocide denier, the military is that by default. The bill recently passed in the USA came under heavy attack by both powers, as well as the White House, which needs Turkey as a whole as an ally. While you could support the military against Islamization, there's nothing in Turkey that you can support against state nationalism. Armenian (and Assyrian) genocide recognition earns you the attention of radical nationalists who solve dissent with murder much like terrorists with Fatwas. Turkish nationalists (and there's a lot of them) will treat much like you're a neo-Nazi in Germany. This stubborn and dangerous nationalism goes through all layers or Turkish society and it can be blamed for the Cyprus question, since Turkey does not acknowledge Greek controlled Cyprus, just Turkish Cyprus which was illegally invaded.<br /><br />What these nationalists need is a little bit of humble pie. The Germans got it after World War 2 and they don't deny anything. I think the Serbs are also starting to take hints, even in the complex diplomatic web of the Balkan. But countries like Japan or Turkey have a hard time acknowledging their crimes. I can understand that because they may be afraid the actions of the past reflect on them now. Even I think the Indonesian conflicts of the Netherlands are sad, but necessary (I still see Soekarno as a creepy fellow with his own brand of state nationalism which is why islands that did not join his republic willingly were invaded). But it would be better for Turkey to come clean and then we can all relate to eachother on equal terms. It's not like any European Union member is without genocidal incidents or cases of mass murder and unnecessary violence. Well, Norway maybe. But Scandinavians are perfect for a reason.<br /><br />So yeah, I hope this blows up in Turkey's face and (Kurdish) Iraq retaliates. It will kill two birds in one stone: the state nationalistic Turks and that arrogant George Bush who thought this war was a good idea. A war at this point will be most disruptive for Iraq, just as Dubya's clique was hoping to score points on the Betrayus report. Yeah I know, it's not nice to wish this on Iraqis now that they are so down and the whole region is at a turning point. I wish it was the neo-cons who lived in Iraq. The only IEDs we can expect from them in the US are October surprises, fillibustering, vetos and dirty politics.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-60837794603975099142007-08-06T06:26:00.000-07:002007-08-06T07:08:52.433-07:00Kudos for pussies!Everybody who believed the Democrats (those guys holding the US congress) would end the war in Iraq swiftly, raise your hands. Feel free to regret your beliefs. Everybody who still believes the Democrats will make a stand against Bush now raise your hands. Then go stand in the corner and start shaming yourself deeply. Just by threatening a veto, Bush succeeded in making the Dems cater to the wishes of some repugnant greedy asshole at national security. They agreed to allow the intelligence agencies to now conduct warrantless tapping on foreign e-mail, phone conversation, pretty much every breach of privacy Bush has made over the years now. If the people in the US want to be spied on, that's fine. We in Europe don't want it. We're not your citizens, keep your despotism to yourselves. We can't oppose it democratically through voting out your sacks of shit that call themselves president of the US of A. We can't even make a convenient legal case against Alberto "torture memo" Gonzales, Donald "oops, I did it again" Rumsfeld, Dick "I shot the hunter" Cheney and the other usual suspects. Even if European countries ask the extradition of one of these criminals, people like Bush, so high and mighty in their little confined worlds of Jesus loving and bible thumping, will never agree because as they see it, USians are so special and grand that they're above all international law. International law is a tool to drag foreigners out of their spider holes, shave their beards, put them on a show trail and have their necks snapped by the noose of a gallow.<br /><br />So my question to US citizens is: what are you gonna do about, punk? Just sit there and pretend you'll be fine as long as you act like the rest of the herd? Yeah, I know you voted the democrats already thinking that would help but it doesn't. You're supposed to go out there and protest for your rights! Sounds gay? Okay, let me offer the American solution to this problem. You people have easy access to guns right? Get one, preferably high caliber, good accuracy, long range and with decorative markings so you'll look cool doing your patriotic duty. Then it's up to you to decide on a style. March up to the front gates of the White House, pick an attic in a book depository, wait until the target goes to see an opera and make it an unforgetable curtain call. Then shoot that sonuvab*tch up real good. Don't leave that mothaf*cka with a single part of his body untouched by bullets. I read the musket balls could rip the flesh off of a person, so that's one way to make him suffer. Don't neglect the impact of hollow point bullets though. They can cause unnecessary pain in the victim.<br /><br />I know that by writing this the NSA will forever ban me from entering the US and they're now going to ask my government to arrest me for terrorism and send me over to Poland in a gimp suit. Next time I update my blog, it will probably be from out of Gitmo, and what I wrote has been 'approved' by some CIA tool. Private e-mails will probably bounce from now on to if send to someone living in America. Pity, I had my eye on a certain girl that I might have asked for an online relationship.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-47720186654282956982007-07-13T16:46:00.000-07:002007-07-13T16:47:43.859-07:00Annoying easily discriminated youthTonight I joined a couple of girls from my school to have a night out in Rotterdam. It was fun, but on the way there we ran into some trouble on the train. One of our group is a middle-aged lady, easily considered White Secular Dutch (not to be confused with White Anglo-Saxon Protestant). On the other side of her sits a Temperamental 3rd Generation Morrocan-Dutch girl. As is befitting of the stereotype, this stranger is b****ing about life and has her music player on full volume without earplugs, explaining to her friend how some guy shouldn't be telling her to tune down the volume. The woman from our group comment to this girl how "she really should turn the volume down". This youth is up in arms about it immediately.<br />She start a whole rant about how this is only said to her because she's Morrocan and it's her choice of music and why nobody will ask a skinhead to turn down his hardcore in the same situation, and that only Morrocans get that kind of comment. So my friend replies how it's simply obscenely loud. The little b**** considers this an insult to a Morrocan's taste of music and how all Dutch songs are crap and not at all worth playing on her music device. It degenerates into her ripping on Dutch culture while accusing my friend of intolerance. G-rated language has at this point long been abandoned. A passenger sitting next to my friend, who has a young boy on his lap, tells the Morrocan girl she has to be more respectful of the country that allows her to life there. The girl, once again letting loose a spluttering of obsceneties that probably scarred the innocent soul of the boy, accuses both of being intollerant of foreigners. So the man explain to her "I am also a foreigner". Which should have been obvious from the man's skin color. Yet this does not convince the girl she isn't the victim of hate. The rest of the way she blows bubble gum in my friend's ear and keeps her music player playing loud, unknown music (which according to her was Morrocan, though I thought Morrocans had better tastes in culture). While this girl hold her tirade, the only one to come to her aid is some politically correct Jojo sitting in the back, hidden in a corner. Every other non-native Dutch person considers the Morrocan girl a nuisance, even that girl's friend.<br />Asside from this one Morrocan, my friend gets along well with the rest of our class, which is made up of a splattering of diverse ethnicities like Dutch, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Colombian, Nigerian and even Afro-Anglo (for lack of a better word). The only ones we don't really like at school are the loud and obnoxious Morrocans. I'm all for tolerance and respect for other people's culture, but if Morrocans or anyone is going to abuse that good faith whenever somebody disagrees, they can stick their complaints where the sun don't shine.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-7116891206128446752007-06-21T08:57:00.000-07:002007-06-21T10:56:30.063-07:00Poland says: "more votes!" I say: "kiss my ass!"Poland annoys me. I don't believe in the whole "plumber scare" of Polish taking over jobs, I'm more worried about Italian plumbers. What angers me is that Poland has been taking part in the USA's secret prisoner flights and likely had at least a prison facility run by the CIA. Their government is openly homophobic to the point of being absolutely gullible. Now this country has been hammering about wanting a bigger says in European Union politics. The Polish right seems to want that, or they are going to hold their breaths until they get what they want.<br />How childish. Under the treaty of Nice Poland already has more sway in the European Council with 27 seats, equal to the number of seats of Spain. Poland has 7.000.000 people less than Spain, yet both have 27. If you do some math, like I just did, from a democratic viewpoint, Spain is being held back greatly and Poland gets just a little more power than what is correct population-wise. Right now, Poland's vote represents only 1407407 per seat in the council while Spain represents 1666666 people per seat. For those who where planning to flame me for disagreeing with Poland I'll be fair, the Dutch vote is even less democratic: 1230769 people represented per seat. You know what is really funny? The Big Four (Germany, France, UK and Italy) are handicapped at 29 seats! Greatly favoring smaller countries like Poland or the Netherlands!<br />If you would assign seats on the basis of European Union population : total Council seats you'd get something like this:<br /><br />France: 44<br />Great Britain: 41<br />Italy: 41<br />Spain: 31<br />Poland: 26<br />Romania: 15<br />Netherlands: 11<br /><br />So Poland already has a better deal than it would technically deserve, especially considering its junior status. And they still want more? Are they nuts? It's an insult to smaller countries and unfair to larger ones! Founding member or recently admitted country alike! Considering the pro-Bush, pro-Iraq war and anti-Gay stance of eastern countries, I feel sick when I think about that I'm being represented by such people. Which is why I wouldn't want the EU to grow more powerful. But Poland crossed the line! An upstart country ignored by history suddenly developing a superiority complex. They're not even making a secret out of their power coup. As quoted from Kaczynski: "We should do everything to push through our proposal or to obtain some other solution that would equally satisfy our ambitions. Either we obtain that, or there will be a veto."<br />As if that's not immature enough, they now are trying to use the war victims of WW2 as an arguement. "If our population hadn't been affected by that, we'd be larger now!". Yeah, right. If Britain, France, Belgium, Luxemburg, the Netherlands, Denmark, Norway, Yugoslavia, Greece, Albania and even Italy hadn't resisted the Nazis then, their populations would doubtlessly have been larger to! Not to mention that if the Black Plague (which by the way avoided Poland because it was such a shithole even a disease would avoid it) had never come to Europe, who knows how much bigger our Dutch nation would have been!<br />I find it disrespectful to abuse the dead for political gain. We are letting the ghosts of fallen people have political sway? The last time we let such pity for a victim cloud our judgement, we ended up with an unstable middle east, a country with a hidden nuclear arsenal, and a major warmonger right where it could cause the most damage. If Poland wants to blackmail or manipulate my feelings of pity, I have for them a hearty "up your ass!".CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-44462664473515995572007-06-18T06:41:00.000-07:002007-06-18T07:16:50.343-07:00Discussion in classAs part of my education, I had to host a discussion about an issue. So I chose the Dutch presence in Afghanistan. A current issue with an impact not often considered by society compared to what happens inside the border. We all had to discuss two different statements, so I came up with those.<br /><br />"We must help the people of Afghanistan build a better future"<br /><br />As expected, everyone agreed that was ideal but there was a great dose of realism. About half of the participants explained that we can only help out in a few places with limited effect. People argued that Africa did not get the same attention while it needs help just as much. It was argued that other countries contribute towards a stable Africa than Europe or the Netherlands, though I believe some of the countries are more a part of the problem than part of a solution.<br />There was also support for the ideal that Dutch are more respectful and know how to solve problems with their army, rather than simply enforcing the peace and letting all ills fester, such as poverty and racial hatreds. And that if they had send Turkish troops to Uruzgan, they would have simply destroyed the poppy harvest instead of promoting an alternative.<br />Despire this "pat yourself on the back" attitude, people also warned that the tolerance of Dutch, our best laid plans and our good intentions don't survive on a battlefield. No plan ever did survive first contact.<br />Meanwhile some still said that the deaths suffered (which are nil compared to those suffered by the US in Iraq or the Taliban on the other side) aren't worth it. After all, the moment foreign troops leave Afghanistan, the Taliban might just crop up again. And if they are eradicated, there is always another loon who will continue their work, even if Afghans prosper and feel unwilling to support such ideals. Personally I do feel that when you enlist in the army, you are making the choice to risk your life for a payment. And those around you should lament that choice, not the line of work itself. A counterargument to that was that people tend to think too lightly about military service if they are promised adventure, truck driving and honourable bringing peace. I personally believe that in a pacifist country like this, a lot of people see the army as something aggressive and a waste of money for a people that don't seek out conflict. Maybe the recruitment methods of the Royal Army are more effective at changes young people's view of it.<br /><br />"The Netherlands are being used to pick up America's trash."<br /><br />Quite a strong sentiment. There was a unnanimous agreement we should not do anything just because Bush said it. The teacher reminded people that America helped liberate Europe and that this explains how previous generations felt like they owed the US. From there comes its reputation as a "righteous" and "free" country. But that in WWII it was Japan, Italy and Germany themselves who had provoked the war, unlike Iraq or Vietnam. Bush is generally considered self-centered, his administration abusing that good reputation in hopes of getting away with inexcuseable faults and crimes, and the neo-cons as "self-righteous".<br />This was by the way the point at which the two Russian students and one Serbian one entered with glee. They both had very little good to say about America and Bush. And although Russia had Afghanistan, Serbia had Kosovo, Bosnia, Croatia and Slovenia and America had Vietnam, of those three America is so far the only one that did not learn anything from their experience and the only one to repeat their mistake in the 21st century.<br /><br />I can go on and on about what I agree with and which ones are good points. But I only have to draw my conclusions, my opinion was not necessary for the discussion. So I am putting it up here so others can draw their own conclusions. A classroom survey of how Dutch view peace missions and "standing by our allies".CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-39229399558567489682007-06-15T14:09:00.000-07:002007-06-15T15:02:51.444-07:00Civil war! I win a €50 bet!So now it seems mister Abbas used his presidential powers to declare an emergency situation in hopes of twarting Hamas. To be honest, I don't believe it is an truly altruistic move. This is power politics and Abbas might be more idealistic and balanced, he is disbanding an elected government which, let's be fair, puts Fatah in control of things and has made Hamas, the largest political faction at this time an outcast. From my point of view, Abbas made a coup d'etat.<br />Which isn't to say he's wrong. It's quite understandable he got fed up with Hamas militia harassing Fatah's own brigades and security forces. Though in this situation there's really no telling which of them drew first blood, and it makes no difference. Both feel slighted long time. Let them fight, I say, I'll be rooting for Fatah and hope at the same time it'll bring some sweeping change for the better, in whatever form.<br />Though it's obvious Fatah is alone and weak. Hamas has a very determined leadership and fighters who are in high spirits, especially after their recent successes in Gaza. Hamas' political wing isn't necessary for them, but shoot me if they surrender the government to Fatah in exchange for military victory. They made it quite clear they rejected the emergency state and will keep on going like nothing happened until Fatah is completely out of the picture. Hamas has more popular support because Fatah's history of corruption while Hamas instead has contributed to charity in Gaza to win the hearts and minds.<br />Although Abbas if friendly with Israel, he can't ask them for any support because Palestinians 1: would see it as hudling with the enemy. 2: don't want Israel back in Gaza. 3: Israelis can't be truste. And in turn Israel doesn't want to get involved because 1: they'll lose the credibility of a friendly faction. 2: don't want to go back to Gaza. 3: Palestinians can't be trusted.<br />But let us stay out of the conflict and watch which one will bite the dust. If it's Fatah, then Hamas takes over and runs itself into the ground, with no aid for Palestine and with Israel having a legitimate <em>casus belli</em> against the unborn state of Palestine, and Gaza's residents soon realizing how lonely it is when your government sponsors terrorism. If (against my expectations) Fatah beats Hamas, that will hopefully eliminate one of the biggest obstacles to a stable peace with Israel from which point on Israel has no further reason to withold on it's own promises and stop being so on edge.<br />But you know what? I believe Israel gave the PA that Hamas den, Gaza, on purpose so they could wait for a conflict like this to happen and once Hamas wins they will say Palestinians really are such a sick bunch of terrorists, sweep in for the kill and deny Palestinians their indipendence from that point on.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7207758839232638580.post-28743636663385172442007-06-12T05:46:00.000-07:002007-06-12T06:07:45.790-07:00Punish the Gorilla!I just read that victims of Gorilla Bokito who escaped his island in the Rotterdam Zoo can sue for money. As if that wasn't bad enough, the main victim (who was told not to have such regular contact lest Bokito grew too fond of her) wants more than just money, she wants to see the Zoo punished!<br />Excuse me for not comforming to the "that has to be terrifying, poor soul!" crowd, but I'm more of a "shit happens" person. Okay, your hand got crushed, you bones broken and there are bite marks all over your body. Count your blessings you didn't attract the attention of one of the Siberian Tigers. What's more, who would have expected Bokito to trudge through the water and jump over the fencing? Gorillas can't swim. That makes his escape an anomaly. A freak accident. It was entirely possible, but improbable. If next hour a UFO crashed on me and my bicycle while I'm off to buy a ham-cheese croisant, do I sue the aliens for what is entirely a freak accident?<br />Further, people go to the Zoo to enjoy it. Escaping gorillas don't make it enjoyable. But sueing the Zoo is not my definition of making it more enjoyable. How much are these people going to ask? More than what is reasonable? Will employees or the management go to jail for something their gorilla did? They did the best they could to prevent this using means that would normally keep the gorillas confined and the view unobstructed by things that detract like bars and concrete. Just when you think you got it right, your gorilla has to screw you and your Zoo over by escaping!<br />And it wasn't the first time Bokito escaped, he was not quite a model prisoner even in Berlin. And here I thought Germans knew all about keeping savages locked up... So clearly, the gorilla must pay for the trouble he caused his masters and audience! Put him on meagre rations until the costs saved through this have made up for the damage claims made at the adress of the zoo! And since some animals can perform useful tasks, like elephants and horses, explore the possibilities of having Bokito renovate the island fence and water ditch so that he can't escape again!<br />Now some might say that's animal cruelty. You're, we have to look for the real culprit. But if not Bokito or the Zoo, who else was involved? The victim! The victim must pay the Zoo and poor, poor Bokito for tempting his fragile mind, seducing him to jump over that fence and start a rampage! A few more broken bones and biting will suffice as corporeal punishment. Or if it's going to be a jail term, let her sit it out on the rock with the gorillas. And I don't mean Alcatraz Island and it's inmates.CDhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/04010285490015891957noreply@blogger.com0