Saturday, January 13, 2007

The Central Issue of Our Time?

What did you expect life in the 21st century would be like?

The right to un-provoked, unnecessary, unilateral invasions and unplanned occupations (UULUIUO's) invoked by Bush in Iraq is taking root. As the Leader of the 'Free World', the force of America's precedence and example has always promised to be irresistible and potentially overwhelming.

In December, the world watched Meles Zenawi's Ethiopia invade Somalia on a preventive war pretext, construing the decentralized and tribal Union of Islamic Courts as terrorists and claiming endorsement on international organizations as endorsing their action as well as expecting them to assume the task of occupation and rebuilding.

Now, in January we have NATO ally, Turkey, entertaining the same UULUIUO-type of activity. Prime Minister Tayyip Erdogan on Friday reaffirmed Turkey's right to send troops into Iraq to crush Kurdish rebels there and chided U.S. officials for questioning it. Erdogan told a news conference after a meeting of his ruling AK Party,
We don't want to waste time with abstract statements, we want concrete results . . .

The Turkish Republic will do whatever is necessary to combat the terrorists when the time comes, but it will not announce its plans in advance. . . . We have a 350 km border with Iraq. We have historic relations ... the United States is 10,000 km away from Iraq, and yet is it not intervening in Iraq's internal affairs?
Thus, as the 21st century is just getting on its feet, George Bush thinks he has established what its "Central Issue" will be and what measures will be selected to deal with it.

The central task of this century, according to Bush's vision, are to seek out and identify 'extremists' and bomb and/or invade them.

Hold on to your hats, my fellow citizens of the 21st Century. And prepare for the draft: we'll need one for our future UULUIUO's: The world is full of more I-Rocks out there, waiting to be cracked open.


  1. In accord Vigil!

    Azzam Tamimi on 10 January 2007 in the Guardian. Mr. Tamimi puts it succinctly when he says:

    “…All the evidence suggests that the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) in Somalia was a 100% local project. The UIC consisted of pious "men of religion" who were trusted by the public in Mogadishu to restore law and order after years of lawlessness and havoc reeked by tribal warlords, each of which had regional or international sponsors. It was the model set by the UIC inside Mogadishu that encouraged the Somalis in other towns across the country to appeal to them to rescue their communities from the chaos brought upon them by gangs run and funded by unrepentant warlords…The UIC leaders and members had no personal ambitions; their only ambition was to restore order and enable the Somalis to live their lives as they wished. All claims of association between the UIC and al-Qaida have been unfounded. They were merely pretexts for foreign regional and international intervention aimed at halting the progress of the UIC in establishing its authority across the country. Now we know that the ultimate objective of the invading power, Ethiopia, has been more than just stemming the growth of the UIC phenomenon. Supported by the US, Ethiopia has been after the total destruction of the UIC project in prelude to installing a puppet regime led by the warlords' "interim government"…”

  2. I hate to sound fatalistic but it is a monumental understatement to say that events are controlling people instead of the other way around. So despite whatever might be the best thing for us and others to do in the region all this crap stirred up by Bush and the neocons may have to play itself out. Please understand I take no joy in writing such a statement much less even thinking about it. Bush has set things in motion that has destroyed the status quo in the region and some new equilibrium will have to be found. The only thing I'm uncertain of is how much blood will flow until a new balance is settled upon.

  3. Why don`t you publish a few things by Cindy Sheehan here.?
    She makes some good answers to these hangdog questions about the future.

    She has more brains in her little finger than our current Rulers.

    The tone of this post is pure , roll over and die.

  4. I'm really glad you made this timely suggestion, Skip. I have been churning up too many hours looking for a Rove clip which would balance off a concept I had about polarization, which was prompted by my waking up the other morning to an interview of Cindy Sheehan.

    BBC interviews, compared to the opposite end of the spectrum in American MSM (represented by Larry King) are more like interrogations. No softballs are pitched. Every pitch is either a fastball, curve, screw, change-up, knuckleball or fork ball. Everything is over the plate, except for the brush-back pitches; and every pitch is a set-up for the following.

    The follow-up question is a practiced art for these BBC 'interrogators' who are not above rephrasing a question a 2nd or 3rd time where they sense weakness in the subject's previous responses. I have seen government spokesman stories systematically disassembled, stripped of flesh down their bare skeleton. Often the guest's (one wants to use the word 'subject' or 'perpetrator') pretense of not having been engorged by the end of the interview make me want to LOL.

    I'm saying this because Cindi Sheehan this time came through with flying colors. She was never flustered, never taken off message, never allowed the interviewer leave words in her mouth, never left unattended a single dangling innuendo, and always had the answer I was hoping for. I found her performance exhilarating.

    This lady is polished and fearless. The suggestion that she might run for Congress in Texas gives you an idea of this lass' pluck. In my judgment, she's ready to 'mess' with the Lone Star state.

    BBC archives are difficult to navigate. For the time being you can find the interview I heard here. You can listen while you continue your 'Net surfing.

    As soon as I find that citation of Rove talking about (before the Iraqi invasion) using 911 to win elections, I'll post my thoughts about polarization.

  5. BTW, I omitted mention that I have featured Cindy Sheehan before.

  6. Beach Bum, I find that your comment especially well addresses a problem I have sensed for some time: pundits, national and international, are too glib in their assessment that things are under control in Mesopotamia, and can be addressed effectively by their endless wonking, tweaking and fine-tuning of various (supposedly) policy options. I am convinced that Iraqis will eventually hammer out their destiny regardless of how much MORE Anglo-American blood and money is expended.

  7. I agree with you, Vigilante, about the BBC. That's well said. I am constantly amazed by the questions they ask and find myself wondering why we can't have that here. Maybe it comes out of the more confrontational parliamentary system of the Brits.

    Thank goodness for the BBC.

  8. Vigilante should have restricted the world's supply of future 'I-Rocks' to countries which do not have nuclear capabilities since prevention of proliferation is one of the newly-approved grounds for preventive war.

  9. Excellent interview with Cindy Sheehan. She rocks. No doubt with this brush with Politics she will not go into that in the future.
    She`s just too smart I think.~!~

    The B.B.C. did an excellent job here. She answers those tough questions honestly and intelligently.
    It`s a rare thing to find such a clear voice at this time.
    What a lovely women.

  10. I hope you don't let it go to your heads but all of the comments here are superb! :)

    As it happens, I did hear this BBC Sheehan interview and was suprised twice by it. The first one was; I was expecting to hear some well meaning simpleton to show up. All I knew about her was what I heard from right of the center sources. Needless to say, she impressed me pleasantly. The second suprise was; the expected BBC ambush/bloodbath never took place.

    Some of you wonder, why such straight shooting stuff is heard in BBC and rarely if ever in your domestic media? That is only half true, because other national prodcasters all over the Europe do excatly the same. They are in the blessed situation of not having to worry about the advertisers. Also, that you don't know about them, is due to the unfortunate language barrier. Let me just say; you are not very well served.

  11. So, is Pekka saying
    A)Americans are born stupid?
    B)Americans are stupid because they don't learn foreign languages?
    C) Americans are stupid because they allow private enterprize to run their media?

  12. We are a bit touchy, aren't we, db?

    To answer your questions;
    A)Some are.
    B)It never hurts to speak a foreign language.
    C)To have, for instance, BBC type of national broadcaster has to be financed by all. If the apparent improvement in the reliability of the information is an urgent enough matter to you to lay out your own money to get it, go for it! You, Americans, chose to go private and I don't have any problem with that. However, if you complain that the MSM has come short on keeping you informed enough maybe if not being stupid but short sighted would be the case here?

    I also took a trouble to read where it was that I called the Americans stupid. Didn't find it.

  13. If the BBC is all that you guys say it is, how come the Brits end up with a poodle for a PM? How smart is that?

  14. Before our proxy, Ethiopia, invaded Somalia and dispersed the confederated Union of Islamic Courts, there were three independent radio stations operating. And now? Somali government launches media crackdown

  15. Happy Birthday, Martin Luther King, Jr.

  16. US ambassador to Kenya Michael Ranneberger has urged the so-called transitional government to negotiate with moderate elements of the Islamic Courts, including Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed.