Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Kurdish Terrorist Culturally Attacks Turkey!
Today 24 February, 2009, Member of the Turkish Parliament Ahmet Turk, spoke Kurdish during a televised session of parliament. This illegal action immediately caused the terrorist to be cut off. I hope the Turkish courts seek the full penalty under Turkish law. The Kurds are terrorists. The Worker's Party of Kudestan has been attack Turkish civilians since 1978. In Iraq, Ali Hassan al-Majid was accused and wrongfully convicted of genocide during attacks against the Kurds during the Iran-Iraq War. If you notice, the majority of civilians who survived the attacks were in Iran. What were these people doing in Iran when Iraq was at war with it. Perhaps spying? getting arms to fight a gorilla war? Once again these rodents sided with the United States during it's imperialist war in Iraq. The Kurds are terrorists and must be harshly dealt with
Monday, February 23, 2009
Endorsement for the Spanish Regional Elections
On Sunday 1 March, 2009, the Spanish Autonomous Communities of Galicia and the Basque Country will hold local elections. These elections will be a major test for the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero's socialist led government. The Spanish economy is in decline and both regions have their own cultural groups seeking some sort of autonomy or independence.
In the Autonomous Community of Galicia, I will endorse the Galician Nationalist Bloc. The Bloc is composed of a group of leftist Galician nationalist parties, who seek to protect Galician culture and language through socialism. The Bloc however is not my ideal party to endorse. I would honestly prefer to endorse a right-wing Galician Eurosceptic party. I feel that the Bloc, upon independence, (if it chooses) would seek ties toward the European Union. I feel the only way to truely protect Galician culture, or any culture is to avoid or actively seek to destroy globalisation.
In the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, although illegal, I will support any candidates who are endorsed or have ties to the Communist Party of the Basque Homelands. The Communist Party of the Basque Homelands is a Marxist-Leninist organisation closely allied with Batasuna and the E.T.A. who actively promote a separation between the Basque Country. I am supporting them for two reasons. One is that they are a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist political party. The other is because I vehemently oppose the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. I am not a huge supporter of Basque independence, but if the Basque Country achieved independence it would be a major national upset for his government.
In the Autonomous Community of Galicia, I will endorse the Galician Nationalist Bloc. The Bloc is composed of a group of leftist Galician nationalist parties, who seek to protect Galician culture and language through socialism. The Bloc however is not my ideal party to endorse. I would honestly prefer to endorse a right-wing Galician Eurosceptic party. I feel that the Bloc, upon independence, (if it chooses) would seek ties toward the European Union. I feel the only way to truely protect Galician culture, or any culture is to avoid or actively seek to destroy globalisation.
In the Autonomous Community of the Basque Country, although illegal, I will support any candidates who are endorsed or have ties to the Communist Party of the Basque Homelands. The Communist Party of the Basque Homelands is a Marxist-Leninist organisation closely allied with Batasuna and the E.T.A. who actively promote a separation between the Basque Country. I am supporting them for two reasons. One is that they are a revolutionary Marxist-Leninist political party. The other is because I vehemently oppose the government of Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. I am not a huge supporter of Basque independence, but if the Basque Country achieved independence it would be a major national upset for his government.
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Support for the No Vote in Kyrgyzstan
Today 19 February, 2009 the Republic of Kyrgyzstan will hold a parliamentary vote on whether or not they should renew a contract with the United States regarding a military base. The military base the United States currently has in Kyrgyzstan is one of the main operations bases for the current U.S.-led war in Afghanistan. I am supporting the Kyrgyz government in a no vote, especially since a no vote would boost relations with Russia and China. Kyrgyzstan has more to benefit from a No Vote than they do with a vote to maintain the base.
Tuesday, February 17, 2009
Opposition to the War in Afghanistan
Today, 17 February, 2009, U.S. President Barak Obama deployed 2 battalions of troops to Afghanistan. I believe, this is one of the first of many foreign policy mistakes Obama will make. He is investing his time on Afghanistanistan hoping to proove he is a second term president and a leader in the war against terrorism, but he is campaigning on the anti-Bush rheatoric he campaigned for. But the wars he is fighting for are wrong! Today, the war in Afghanistan is the war that is not worth fighting for. The problems that plague Afghanistan now are the same problems Afghanistan had in 1979. The problems are not about the west nor terrorism. They are purely political. Afghanistan has been in a constant state of civil war for the past 30 years. First it was between the Communist-backed Democratic Republic of Afghanistan of Babrak Karmal and Mohammad Najibullah and the U.S. backed-Mujaheddin of which Osama bin Ladin was a member. After that, Afghanistan once again had a civil war between the Mujaheddin and moderate Islamic Parties against the Taliban. That civil war lasted until the U.S. led invasion in October 2001.
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from April 1996 to October 2001, the Taliban aided Osama bin Ladin not because they wanted to support terrorism but because bin Ladin's money bought his way in. Afghanistan had offered several nations in the radical Islamic world to host bin Ladin, but their requests were denied. The Republic of Sudan even offered the Clinton administration bin Ladin in return for humanitarian aid, but the Clinton administration denied Omar al-Bashir's request.
11 September, 2001, bin Ladin's terrorist group al-Qaeda attacked the United States. Following these attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush declared War on Terror, a war on every terrorist group on Earth. The U.S.-led War on Terror ended in Afghanistan on 9 October, 2004, when the new Islamic Republic of Afghanistan held democratic elections for the first time. Since the elections of 2004, in which current president, Hamid Karzai won marks the new government and the end to issues which would be caused by terrorism. The current military conflict in Afghanistan is an internal Afghani issue not an issue of terrorism. Afghanistan must decide it's own future. The United States should only supply an army corps of engineers to rebuild and repair infrastructure or any other humanitarian aid to help Afghanistan. Of course, a brigade or two of active troops should be in the nation to defend the humanitarian aid to rebuild the nation. If attacks continue on N.A.T.O. or U.S. troops we should withdraw but offer assistance to any future Afghani regime.
Iraq however is a completely different story. Currently, Iraq is relatively stable due to a large active American troop strength. The issues in Iraq are issues of terrorism and the Islamic world. These issues would never have happend if Saddam Hussein was still in power, in fact it would be unimaginable. Today, the grave of former President Hussein has become a pilgramage site for Ba'athist supporters. Only because there is a large active troop strength Iraq is stable. The second U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq, a major civil war will break out between various ethnic and religious factions. The result of a major Iraqi Civil War can lead to a government which would be more hostile then the remarkably amicable relationship of Saddam Hussein had toward the United States during the 1970's and 1980's. Because Iraq's issue is not internal, the result has the potential to be more dangerous than the issues that are related to Afghanistan. The United States needs to stay in Iraq because it was a mistake. The United States now has the responsiblity to repair and stabilize Iraq because the war was a mistake. Afghanistan however, as George W. Bush would say, "Mission Accomplished". The United States successfully brang democratic elections to Afghanistan. Currently, in Afghanistan U.S. troops have over stayed their welcome, and the Afghani people are tired of a pro-Western government and want a government of their choice. Even President Karzai recognises this and desires peace and reconciliation with the Taliban and othe radical Islamic groups. The War in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghanis and not to N.A.T.O.
When the Taliban ruled Afghanistan from April 1996 to October 2001, the Taliban aided Osama bin Ladin not because they wanted to support terrorism but because bin Ladin's money bought his way in. Afghanistan had offered several nations in the radical Islamic world to host bin Ladin, but their requests were denied. The Republic of Sudan even offered the Clinton administration bin Ladin in return for humanitarian aid, but the Clinton administration denied Omar al-Bashir's request.
11 September, 2001, bin Ladin's terrorist group al-Qaeda attacked the United States. Following these attacks, U.S. President George W. Bush declared War on Terror, a war on every terrorist group on Earth. The U.S.-led War on Terror ended in Afghanistan on 9 October, 2004, when the new Islamic Republic of Afghanistan held democratic elections for the first time. Since the elections of 2004, in which current president, Hamid Karzai won marks the new government and the end to issues which would be caused by terrorism. The current military conflict in Afghanistan is an internal Afghani issue not an issue of terrorism. Afghanistan must decide it's own future. The United States should only supply an army corps of engineers to rebuild and repair infrastructure or any other humanitarian aid to help Afghanistan. Of course, a brigade or two of active troops should be in the nation to defend the humanitarian aid to rebuild the nation. If attacks continue on N.A.T.O. or U.S. troops we should withdraw but offer assistance to any future Afghani regime.
Iraq however is a completely different story. Currently, Iraq is relatively stable due to a large active American troop strength. The issues in Iraq are issues of terrorism and the Islamic world. These issues would never have happend if Saddam Hussein was still in power, in fact it would be unimaginable. Today, the grave of former President Hussein has become a pilgramage site for Ba'athist supporters. Only because there is a large active troop strength Iraq is stable. The second U.S. troops withdraw from Iraq, a major civil war will break out between various ethnic and religious factions. The result of a major Iraqi Civil War can lead to a government which would be more hostile then the remarkably amicable relationship of Saddam Hussein had toward the United States during the 1970's and 1980's. Because Iraq's issue is not internal, the result has the potential to be more dangerous than the issues that are related to Afghanistan. The United States needs to stay in Iraq because it was a mistake. The United States now has the responsiblity to repair and stabilize Iraq because the war was a mistake. Afghanistan however, as George W. Bush would say, "Mission Accomplished". The United States successfully brang democratic elections to Afghanistan. Currently, in Afghanistan U.S. troops have over stayed their welcome, and the Afghani people are tired of a pro-Western government and want a government of their choice. Even President Karzai recognises this and desires peace and reconciliation with the Taliban and othe radical Islamic groups. The War in Afghanistan should be left to the Afghanis and not to N.A.T.O.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)