onsdag 30 mars 2011
Substancial patience: Now: here it comes!
Substancial patience: Now: here it comes!: "So, now we, the Swedish people have received an answer to the question why Sweden has to participate in Nato's military actions in Libya (so..."
Now: here it comes!
So, now we, the Swedish people have received an answer to the question why Sweden has to participate in Nato's military actions in Libya (sorry for the earlier misspelling!). Sweden has to follow Nato, because Sweden is not member of Nato... A paradox? Well, listen to his: Sweden has signed a one party agreement that we will help other European countries if they promise to help us if there were any military risks. Kind of: I wash your hand if you wash mine. According to the Swedish papers, and foreign minister Carl Bildt, is this the reason why we cannot say no to engage in Libya. Problem is: as far as I know there is no European country actually threatened by the libyan government, is it?
So, once more, why do we have to participate?
It is even told that Germanys membership in Nato gives them the right to put themselves outside this mitlitary engagement, just because they already ARE member of Nato and therefore already are secured in case of military threats. We have to fight for our security... Luckily, next week Rasmussen, Nato's generalsecretary will visit Sweden. I am not going to be surprised if we receive another invitaion to join Nato. Of course... we have to defend our country from non existing threats. Oh, sorry, no, there actually ARE threats now. At least after having been put in the middle of a military mission in northafrica.
So, once more, why do we have to participate?
It is even told that Germanys membership in Nato gives them the right to put themselves outside this mitlitary engagement, just because they already ARE member of Nato and therefore already are secured in case of military threats. We have to fight for our security... Luckily, next week Rasmussen, Nato's generalsecretary will visit Sweden. I am not going to be surprised if we receive another invitaion to join Nato. Of course... we have to defend our country from non existing threats. Oh, sorry, no, there actually ARE threats now. At least after having been put in the middle of a military mission in northafrica.
tisdag 29 mars 2011
Substancial patience: Afghanistan all over again - or why you shouldn't ...
Substancial patience: Afghanistan all over again - or why you shouldn't ...: "I really had a hard time on chosing my topic today. The news, the papers, conversations with family and friends all spin around Lybia, Syria..."
Afghanistan all over again - or why you shouldn't play with guns
I really had a hard time on chosing my topic today. The news, the papers, conversations with family and friends all spin around Lybia, Syria, Japan, Sweden's engagement in Lybia, .... and in the middle of all that, a member of the Swedish parliament tells us that refugees hiding in sweden (even children) should not get any help: no school, no care, nothing.
Well, I could discuss SD's Åkesson (right wing party leader), but I just feel that my time and my thoughts are too precious to waste on his statements.
Then we have Syria. In the morning there was just one headline, no explaining text, in one of the Swedish biggest papers: Syrian government will resign today. No more, no less. So, media has not received any information on Srian status in the last couple of days, but they know that the Syrian President will kick his administration? Tonight, the Swedish people had for the very first time the possibility to read about the pro-syrian demonstrations, but (!) with a hint that those demonstrations were kind of fake. Why did not anyone question the earlier protests against the Syrian regime? Why did not anyone check if there were only Syrians protesting or if there were other forces in action? Well, I leave this question to the Swedish and International media to answer but assume that I will have to wait for eternity for a reply.
Last, but not least, the Swedish decision to send own planes to Lybia to help Nato in their effords to help the Lybian rebellions. USA's Obama Barack even talks about putting weapon into the rebellions hands to help them against Ghaddafis violence. Is it just me or is this like a dejà vu? Could someone please remind the American president, Nato, FN and everyone else who believes in this strange idea, that this could give the rest of the world a real hangover. Think: Afghanistan. Talibans getting weapon to fight against the Sovjet. And what happened then? Did not the US point out Talibans as the worst enemy in their fight against terror?
Ok, just let us think: we give away guns into rebellions' hands, we give them all Nato power to fight Ghaddafi and his supporters (and YES, those are people too!), we support all of the anti-Ghaddafi movement. But do we know who we support? Do we know if those rebellions actually will be better to their people than Ghaddafi has been? What will happen, once Ghaddafi (or al Assad in Syria, or King Abdullah of Jordan, etc) are gone? Another Iraqi fiasko? Or will we see a government supported by West that will see to West's best interests i.e. cheaper oil and gas? Is all of this a fight for peace and human rights or is it a way to secure nature's assets to our own advantage? Will the FN, Nato, Sweden be able to secure human rights in those countries after a powershift? Or will they leave the countries to fall apart as Afghanistan and Iraq?
And one last question: if all nations follow Nato-lead into a military engagement, which country will then be able to do the talk? Which country will be able to stand aside to act as neutral part to be able to help those countries on a democratic, non-military path towards freedom, democray and peace? The Swedish government has from today resigned from this post! What a pity!
Well, I could discuss SD's Åkesson (right wing party leader), but I just feel that my time and my thoughts are too precious to waste on his statements.
Then we have Syria. In the morning there was just one headline, no explaining text, in one of the Swedish biggest papers: Syrian government will resign today. No more, no less. So, media has not received any information on Srian status in the last couple of days, but they know that the Syrian President will kick his administration? Tonight, the Swedish people had for the very first time the possibility to read about the pro-syrian demonstrations, but (!) with a hint that those demonstrations were kind of fake. Why did not anyone question the earlier protests against the Syrian regime? Why did not anyone check if there were only Syrians protesting or if there were other forces in action? Well, I leave this question to the Swedish and International media to answer but assume that I will have to wait for eternity for a reply.
Last, but not least, the Swedish decision to send own planes to Lybia to help Nato in their effords to help the Lybian rebellions. USA's Obama Barack even talks about putting weapon into the rebellions hands to help them against Ghaddafis violence. Is it just me or is this like a dejà vu? Could someone please remind the American president, Nato, FN and everyone else who believes in this strange idea, that this could give the rest of the world a real hangover. Think: Afghanistan. Talibans getting weapon to fight against the Sovjet. And what happened then? Did not the US point out Talibans as the worst enemy in their fight against terror?
Ok, just let us think: we give away guns into rebellions' hands, we give them all Nato power to fight Ghaddafi and his supporters (and YES, those are people too!), we support all of the anti-Ghaddafi movement. But do we know who we support? Do we know if those rebellions actually will be better to their people than Ghaddafi has been? What will happen, once Ghaddafi (or al Assad in Syria, or King Abdullah of Jordan, etc) are gone? Another Iraqi fiasko? Or will we see a government supported by West that will see to West's best interests i.e. cheaper oil and gas? Is all of this a fight for peace and human rights or is it a way to secure nature's assets to our own advantage? Will the FN, Nato, Sweden be able to secure human rights in those countries after a powershift? Or will they leave the countries to fall apart as Afghanistan and Iraq?
And one last question: if all nations follow Nato-lead into a military engagement, which country will then be able to do the talk? Which country will be able to stand aside to act as neutral part to be able to help those countries on a democratic, non-military path towards freedom, democray and peace? The Swedish government has from today resigned from this post! What a pity!
måndag 28 mars 2011
Substancial patience: who is dying? ..and what then?
Substancial patience: who is dying? ..and what then?: "Let me discuss Syria just once more. I just watched the news in TV and during 5 minutes the situation in Syria was discussed. The thing that..."
who is dying? ..and what then?
Let me discuss Syria just once more. I just watched the news in TV and during 5 minutes the situation in Syria was discussed. The thing that I missed are stories of eye-witnesses and I do not talk about cellphone movies, but news from people living there. It's said that journalists are not allowed to take pictures or to move throughout the country, well, what about the people living there? I get news from my parents, who right now are in Lattakia, on a daily basis, even pictures attached to e-amils that tell a whole different story.
They tell me that many of the wounded actually are policemen who are not allowed to use any firearms, civilians that try to stopp gunmen who shoot on ordinary civilians. The people of Lattakia were glad when the military arrived because now the situaion calmed down. There are pro-syria demonstrations on a daily basis as well as a couple of minor oppositional demonstrations. The shootings are not happening at those times but at night, outside demonstrations, .... and most of them not by government forces. So, please, media, tell me what to believe? Your picture or the stories told by people actually living in those countries? The only similarity between the two stories is the fact that everyone is waiting for the President's speech!
They tell me that many of the wounded actually are policemen who are not allowed to use any firearms, civilians that try to stopp gunmen who shoot on ordinary civilians. The people of Lattakia were glad when the military arrived because now the situaion calmed down. There are pro-syria demonstrations on a daily basis as well as a couple of minor oppositional demonstrations. The shootings are not happening at those times but at night, outside demonstrations, .... and most of them not by government forces. So, please, media, tell me what to believe? Your picture or the stories told by people actually living in those countries? The only similarity between the two stories is the fact that everyone is waiting for the President's speech!
lördag 26 mars 2011
Substancial patience: Interception in real life
Substancial patience: Interception in real life: "Let me continue my earlier writings on the development in the middle-east and I promise you a forecast that we will be able to discuss in a ..."
Interception in real life
Let me continue my earlier writings on the development in the middle-east and I promise you a forecast that we will be able to discuss in a couple of weeks.
As i wrote before, the happenings in Syria were non-existent when media chose to publish minor demonstration by making an elefant out of a moskito. Now the moskito grow into being an elefant and iI wonder what will happen next. The Syrian regim has already closed down several cities and limited journalistic activities throughout the country. Because: this is what happens when a military monarch (Bashar actually "inherited" presidency from his father Hafez) feels threatened. He will do all in his power to defend his position. This is nature's law: the strongest one will win. Darwin stipulated this theory decades ago.
So what will happen now? And why is media so interested to see another civil-war in the middle-east?
First we had Tunisia and Egypt with a lot of internal problems, disasterous poverty and millions of people without any prospekts for the future. At the same time the people could see the rich getting richer on national assets that could have been split within the poor once. Then: Lybia.... West always wanted to get rid of Ghaddafi and now all of the western countries urging for oil and petrol and gas saw their chance to knock down Lybia's leadership without any interference from Egyptian military. ....and to win all of Lybia's assets, both money and land. Now we can see problems in Bahrain, Jordan and Syria. A well known politics of Syria is its support of Hizbollah in Lebanon and Palestines in Gaza. A strong military made all movements in Lebanon impossible even after the official exit of Syria from Lebanon.
Well, the situation has changed now: the Syrian military is engaged in internal problems that (according to my findings) have been started by foreign media and some badly filmed cellphone movies. There is no more security for Lebanon, no more powerful resistance for Palestine. Thanks to this evolvement, the possibility that West will strike on Hizbollah and the Palestine is more than imminent. ... and with West I do not only talk about EU or NATO. Tell me: who has noticed the Israelian decision to expand settlement constructions in Ghaza? Who react on the news that Israel and Ghaza send missiles on each other, yet again? In a different world, the world we knew just 2 monts ago, this would have been a big headline on the world's biggest newspapers, now this information is not worth more than minimum articles on page 8. WHy? What happened? Well, the world found another way to diminish these news, they are not interesting anymore thanks to all the happenings all around those countries. Interception? Deceive? Diversion? Call it whatever you want, the once suffering are the real people in ALL of those countries!
As i wrote before, the happenings in Syria were non-existent when media chose to publish minor demonstration by making an elefant out of a moskito. Now the moskito grow into being an elefant and iI wonder what will happen next. The Syrian regim has already closed down several cities and limited journalistic activities throughout the country. Because: this is what happens when a military monarch (Bashar actually "inherited" presidency from his father Hafez) feels threatened. He will do all in his power to defend his position. This is nature's law: the strongest one will win. Darwin stipulated this theory decades ago.
So what will happen now? And why is media so interested to see another civil-war in the middle-east?
First we had Tunisia and Egypt with a lot of internal problems, disasterous poverty and millions of people without any prospekts for the future. At the same time the people could see the rich getting richer on national assets that could have been split within the poor once. Then: Lybia.... West always wanted to get rid of Ghaddafi and now all of the western countries urging for oil and petrol and gas saw their chance to knock down Lybia's leadership without any interference from Egyptian military. ....and to win all of Lybia's assets, both money and land. Now we can see problems in Bahrain, Jordan and Syria. A well known politics of Syria is its support of Hizbollah in Lebanon and Palestines in Gaza. A strong military made all movements in Lebanon impossible even after the official exit of Syria from Lebanon.
Well, the situation has changed now: the Syrian military is engaged in internal problems that (according to my findings) have been started by foreign media and some badly filmed cellphone movies. There is no more security for Lebanon, no more powerful resistance for Palestine. Thanks to this evolvement, the possibility that West will strike on Hizbollah and the Palestine is more than imminent. ... and with West I do not only talk about EU or NATO. Tell me: who has noticed the Israelian decision to expand settlement constructions in Ghaza? Who react on the news that Israel and Ghaza send missiles on each other, yet again? In a different world, the world we knew just 2 monts ago, this would have been a big headline on the world's biggest newspapers, now this information is not worth more than minimum articles on page 8. WHy? What happened? Well, the world found another way to diminish these news, they are not interesting anymore thanks to all the happenings all around those countries. Interception? Deceive? Diversion? Call it whatever you want, the once suffering are the real people in ALL of those countries!
tisdag 22 mars 2011
Medias commitment to war - wag the dog
I am just again writing about the happenings in the arabic hemisphere. So much that happens right now in so many countries. We all follow the leading papers and news and find new happenings in countries that we never have thought about before: Algeria, Egypt, Lybia, Bahrain, Jordan, Syria... Syria? My parents are actually in Syria right now and I called them. My (german) mom just had come back from Damaskus to the mediterranean city of Lattakia and couldn't confirm any of the news that I had followed during the last week. No protests, no demonstrations, nothing extraordinary.
This makes me think. I remember a film I once saw: wag the dog. Media stages a war in Albania to dislead the people's fokus from their cheating president. Considering how important media and social networks have been during the last couple of months, through all of the subversive happenings in north africa and the arabic world, I start to wonder. Could there be any risk that media does the same thing as in the movie? Could it be in anyone's interest to start internal fights and wars in those countries? Some background information: all countries stated above own large quantities of both petrol and gas, gold and money or have primar political influence in the middle-east. The leaders that actually leave (i.e. Mubarak) are allowed to take all of their money (billions of dollars) that have been made through the sale of those natural assets.
USA's engagement in Irak, one big possibility for the states to get their own base in the middle-east, failed tragically. I can see how disorders in this region could gain the west's economical and financial interest. The possibility to build own military bases in order to promise shelter. Profitable business contracts that promise large quantities of oil, petrol, gas at low prices as payment for security. Who is the winner here?
This makes me think. I remember a film I once saw: wag the dog. Media stages a war in Albania to dislead the people's fokus from their cheating president. Considering how important media and social networks have been during the last couple of months, through all of the subversive happenings in north africa and the arabic world, I start to wonder. Could there be any risk that media does the same thing as in the movie? Could it be in anyone's interest to start internal fights and wars in those countries? Some background information: all countries stated above own large quantities of both petrol and gas, gold and money or have primar political influence in the middle-east. The leaders that actually leave (i.e. Mubarak) are allowed to take all of their money (billions of dollars) that have been made through the sale of those natural assets.
USA's engagement in Irak, one big possibility for the states to get their own base in the middle-east, failed tragically. I can see how disorders in this region could gain the west's economical and financial interest. The possibility to build own military bases in order to promise shelter. Profitable business contracts that promise large quantities of oil, petrol, gas at low prices as payment for security. Who is the winner here?
måndag 21 mars 2011
Protests in the arabic world - wag the dog?
Today the Swedish foreign minister Carl Bildt states 'We have to wait to decide regarding a Swedish participation in any military actions, as we still do not know who leads these actions. There is Eu, Nato and FN and there even could be an ad-hoc administration of different countries.' Well, right now I am wondering who is crazier: Ghaddafi or the rest of the world? Military action without distinct leadership? Civil victims and no one knows who is leading the operation? Bildt is also talking about an ad hoc leadership... I would say that this is an all new expression in modern military action. It is like saying: well, we still do not know who is responsible as long as we don't know what the result will be. This one sentence is actually summarizing the problem that we in west need to solve. We need a new, more distinguished leadership that can re-unite EU, that can make us forget all that happened in Irak and that gives the countries and their people back their credibility towards countries south of the mediterranean. Maybe, an increased credibility and enhanced authority could prevent from further military action in the future. Or at least: make it more trustworthy!
söndag 20 mars 2011
International politics - Lybia - the world goes crazy?
"Ghaddafi is crazy" is what I hear all around me: in the news, papaers around friends.... well: dah.... he is the guy that actually lived in a tent when he was on international meetings. No matter if it was France, England, USA or Sweden. Who had ever a thought that he was normal? And now the world is chocked about his actions in "his" country when there is a risk that he will loose control. I am not chocked at all. I presumed every step that he has taken until now and can even foresee much worse actions from his side. He is (and always has been) crazy. What I am wondering about is what happened to the rest of the world? Since when does FN engage in a country's internal affairs? Have a look at Egypt, Algeria, Bahrain... we saw the comments but did we see any action? NO. Well, why not, one might ask.
Let me have one guess: petrol. None of the countries listed above has any petrol that could be interesting. Egypt ownes gas, but 30% of their gas-deliveries go directly to USA and 40% of Israel's gas is delivered by Egypt below market price. One can see why no government had any interest to disturb this economical balance of power. On teh other side you can see that Lybia ownes oil, petrol. And Lybia sells oil. As far as I know there are no internal contracts with USA, Israel or any other UN-nation. Could this be a reason why the western hemisphere is in such a rage: they saw a possibility, a possibility to make some big money on the poor people of Lybia.
And please, do not misunderstand me, I do not want to see Ghaddafi left as Lybia's leader. I just wonder why the world makes such a big difference between different countries with the same problems. And I hope that they will not leave the lyvian people in a chaos that can be compared to Irak.
Let me have one guess: petrol. None of the countries listed above has any petrol that could be interesting. Egypt ownes gas, but 30% of their gas-deliveries go directly to USA and 40% of Israel's gas is delivered by Egypt below market price. One can see why no government had any interest to disturb this economical balance of power. On teh other side you can see that Lybia ownes oil, petrol. And Lybia sells oil. As far as I know there are no internal contracts with USA, Israel or any other UN-nation. Could this be a reason why the western hemisphere is in such a rage: they saw a possibility, a possibility to make some big money on the poor people of Lybia.
And please, do not misunderstand me, I do not want to see Ghaddafi left as Lybia's leader. I just wonder why the world makes such a big difference between different countries with the same problems. And I hope that they will not leave the lyvian people in a chaos that can be compared to Irak.
fredag 18 mars 2011
Swedish change of mind: nuclear power plants
1980 the Swedish people voted for a liquidation of all nuclear powerplants in sweden by the year 2010. Just in 2010 the Swedish government decided to pass this decision and instead it was voted, with 174 votes against 172, to build new once. The reasons that were given all included a discussion about effects on environment, dependency on oil based energy and so forth. I watched the discussions with big eyes and wondered if we all had forgotten about the possible hazards and the environmental impact due to long lived uranium. But... no... no discussion about these questions. The law was passed. Today, less than a year later, we all watch with horror the happenings in Japan. Yes, I know, a lot of you will tell me that we dont have earthquakes here, but still.... Shouldnt we, as a predecessor regarding environmental questions, instead of building new plants, put the money in even larger environmental friendly energy projects? Why not putting the money into wind or solar-systems? Even if the risk to experience a nuclear meltdown here in Sweden might be minor, still we have the longtime effects of the nuclear waste that has to be stored for hundreds of years. Just this week, the swedish company responsible for nuclear waste, SKB, has asked for permission to store more waste in a cave, deep down in some mountain here in Sweden. Is this not kind of pervert when all of our eyes are facing the development far east?
New at this
All of my friends and family surely think that I am really getting crazy now. No time, always too much to do and still, now I am starting a blogg. Well, look at it this way: with too much to do sometimes I just cannot get rid of all of my thoughts and the tension in my life just by writing on fb. Now, my dear friends, you will be showered by my thoughts, plans, whereabouts and life thrilling happenings! I already thank you for your patience and your comments... see you around!
Prenumerera på:
Inlägg (Atom)