Libyas leader, Gaddafi, is currently giving weapons to his people - a very dangerous move for the people of Libya. Now, they will be moving from civilian status into military personnel.
That is a very special situation, which must be taken into account when you hear news about bombings in Libya.
Civilians have a unique protection according to the laws of war - and rules of engagement. But Gaddafi has now REMOVED that protection by arming his people. So not only has he ruthlessly attacked what he defines as rebels, but now he even moves ahead to destroy even more people by involving them because of his own mental instability.
What a strange behavior indeed...
Sunday, March 20, 2011
Saturday, March 19, 2011
Dare We Disagree?
Do we dare to disagree? Can we actually accept one another - even when we do disagree on certain subjects? This could be anything from being a Republican or a Democrat to whether you agree on our sanctioning a no-flight zone over Libya...
Everyone has great empathy for a people being attacked by their own leader. But how did the world react when China smashed students at Tiananmen at the end of the 1980's? Why were we passive when the Philippines had a dictator of their own who gladly spent thousands of dollars on shoes for his wife, Imelda Marcos, while people went hungry? What did we do in all the other situations where we COULD have done something, but didn't?
Those questions are less popular to ask. Simply because the implication is that you are defending someone just because you dare to QUESTION what takes place.
Shouldn't we all dare to think for ourselves? Shouldn't we be allowed to have our own opinions, even on subjects where the majority just go with the wind?
Anyone with democratic values should be able to realize that we need to think outside the box if we want to SOLVE problems rather than create new ones by taking short-term decisions most of the time.
Do we dare disagree? Please leave a comment, and let's have a debate about our right to disagree... Thanks very much beforehand. :-)
Everyone has great empathy for a people being attacked by their own leader. But how did the world react when China smashed students at Tiananmen at the end of the 1980's? Why were we passive when the Philippines had a dictator of their own who gladly spent thousands of dollars on shoes for his wife, Imelda Marcos, while people went hungry? What did we do in all the other situations where we COULD have done something, but didn't?
Those questions are less popular to ask. Simply because the implication is that you are defending someone just because you dare to QUESTION what takes place.
Shouldn't we all dare to think for ourselves? Shouldn't we be allowed to have our own opinions, even on subjects where the majority just go with the wind?
Anyone with democratic values should be able to realize that we need to think outside the box if we want to SOLVE problems rather than create new ones by taking short-term decisions most of the time.
Do we dare disagree? Please leave a comment, and let's have a debate about our right to disagree... Thanks very much beforehand. :-)
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
The Tragedy in Japan
Why does it take a nuclear meltdown of one of the energy turbines before Europeans begin taking notice of security issues of their sometimes up to thirty year old energy plants?
The tragedy in Japan may instigate a much more thourough analysis in other countries, and that can be beneficial for all - but why do we need a tragedy before we realize just how potentially dangerous nuclear energy CAN be?
For numerous years scientists have debated just how safe nuclear energy actually was, when waste products were treated correctly. It all sounded very good, but after the tragedy in Japan the question come to mind: were we all cheated into slumbering?
Please comment, and let's have a debate about nuclear energy. :-)
The tragedy in Japan may instigate a much more thourough analysis in other countries, and that can be beneficial for all - but why do we need a tragedy before we realize just how potentially dangerous nuclear energy CAN be?
For numerous years scientists have debated just how safe nuclear energy actually was, when waste products were treated correctly. It all sounded very good, but after the tragedy in Japan the question come to mind: were we all cheated into slumbering?
Please comment, and let's have a debate about nuclear energy. :-)
Wednesday, March 9, 2011
Libya - Gadaffi - Al Qaeda etc
Libya's leader Gadaffi is blaming Al Qaeda for his current crisis - and his soldiers blame rebels as drug-abusers. What a chaos in a country that suddenly smelled freedom when Egypt was freed from the reign of Mubarak.
As in so many other poor nations, the sudden feeling of freedom can really ignite their inner longings. Much like the west propably was also fiered up and zealous just centuries ago when what we today know as the US was established...
The main difference being religion, but the longing for democracy just as identical - regardless of religion. :-)
What happens in that region in coming months is truly going to determine how things will boil up. Noone needs any political degree to smell blood. Truly a scary scenario to behold.
What are your thoughts? Please leave a comment, and let's have a good debate.
As in so many other poor nations, the sudden feeling of freedom can really ignite their inner longings. Much like the west propably was also fiered up and zealous just centuries ago when what we today know as the US was established...
The main difference being religion, but the longing for democracy just as identical - regardless of religion. :-)
What happens in that region in coming months is truly going to determine how things will boil up. Noone needs any political degree to smell blood. Truly a scary scenario to behold.
What are your thoughts? Please leave a comment, and let's have a good debate.
Sunday, February 20, 2011
"Four More Years"?
The question about whether President Obama will be a one-term President is going to be revealed once the Republicans will have elected whom they want to run for office. New times didn't quite happen when Obama came into office. Bad scenarios have popped up all around him, and it doesn't take much to consider how a serious Republican candidate COULD win back the office after some pretty awful years under Bush.
It isn't a question about whether Obama made an effort. Everyone realizes he did his best. It would have been stupid to do anything less, because everyone knows a President will be evaluated very harshly by voters when considering four more years.
Everyone considered it was an act of kindness to choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but the choice didn't quite have the effect they would have anticipated. Bill Clinton may be remembered more fondly after he left office, but the whims of Hillary as hidden puppet master seems to be apparent once again - and her chances as a candidate in 2016 are slim at best.
Republicans are free to choose whom they want, but a very strong guess is that Republicans will choose the safe candidate. A candidate that could "prove" even women could enter office, and letting Sarah Palin from Alaska run would be a wise choice. Even if she fails, the Reoublican party could always claim it was because Afro-American Barack Obama was a popular President who, quite naturally, won his second term.
In other words: it would be too dangerous to let Mrs. Palin take on the role of martyr when the Old Boy Network didn't accept her during the 2012 since it would create an even greater expectation for a female President.
In a time when equality should have been natural long ago, sexes are once again important. The power of religion is strong, and no president can ever afford to overlook the strong Bible Belt voters. The Republicans know this because it has been at the centre of their focus every time they have won the office.
So interesting times indeed. :-)
It isn't a question about whether Obama made an effort. Everyone realizes he did his best. It would have been stupid to do anything less, because everyone knows a President will be evaluated very harshly by voters when considering four more years.
Everyone considered it was an act of kindness to choose Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, but the choice didn't quite have the effect they would have anticipated. Bill Clinton may be remembered more fondly after he left office, but the whims of Hillary as hidden puppet master seems to be apparent once again - and her chances as a candidate in 2016 are slim at best.
Republicans are free to choose whom they want, but a very strong guess is that Republicans will choose the safe candidate. A candidate that could "prove" even women could enter office, and letting Sarah Palin from Alaska run would be a wise choice. Even if she fails, the Reoublican party could always claim it was because Afro-American Barack Obama was a popular President who, quite naturally, won his second term.
In other words: it would be too dangerous to let Mrs. Palin take on the role of martyr when the Old Boy Network didn't accept her during the 2012 since it would create an even greater expectation for a female President.
In a time when equality should have been natural long ago, sexes are once again important. The power of religion is strong, and no president can ever afford to overlook the strong Bible Belt voters. The Republicans know this because it has been at the centre of their focus every time they have won the office.
So interesting times indeed. :-)
Wednesday, February 16, 2011
Egypt - A Country in Despair
It is truly tragic to hear of the assaults on journalists that have happened when people tried to get rid of Hosni Mubarak. What a sad testimony to leave behind in a fight for democracy that people can't respect the role of mass media as part of the process...
How can anyone expect Egypt to rise above dictatorships when the population itself understands so little about what democracy is all about?
Egypt is a country in despair. People will wait long before enjoying their next vacation in that country when people have been so abusive during the crisis as to even sexually molest a CBS journalist.
So winning in the sense of getting rid of Hosni Mubarak was one thing. They have lost much respect among civilized people, and those scars will take long to heal.
What are your thoughts about Egypt? You're welcome to leave a comment. :-)
How can anyone expect Egypt to rise above dictatorships when the population itself understands so little about what democracy is all about?
Egypt is a country in despair. People will wait long before enjoying their next vacation in that country when people have been so abusive during the crisis as to even sexually molest a CBS journalist.
So winning in the sense of getting rid of Hosni Mubarak was one thing. They have lost much respect among civilized people, and those scars will take long to heal.
What are your thoughts about Egypt? You're welcome to leave a comment. :-)
Friday, January 28, 2011
Important Decision to Be Made in France
In France, an important decision is facing politicians. Will they follow the 58% of the population who support gays' rights to join in marriage, or will intolerance be the order of the day for a society that claims it never discriminates based on religion?
When it came to the question of christian crosses or jewish kippas or muslim veils, it was claimed that no discrimination happened since all religious signs were forbidden in schools etc.
But what could possibly be the reason for forbidding two people to join in marriage just because they chose to join with a partner of the same sex, if not due to religion?
Politics should never be based upon personal preference but should follow the international guidelines against discrimination. Therefore, the French politicians face a tough decision if they fail to comply with international standards. Will France remain a secular society or will policy-making be based on Catholic standards?
And, if so, have they even considered the implications once religion is mixed with politics? Dangerous ground indeed...
When it came to the question of christian crosses or jewish kippas or muslim veils, it was claimed that no discrimination happened since all religious signs were forbidden in schools etc.
But what could possibly be the reason for forbidding two people to join in marriage just because they chose to join with a partner of the same sex, if not due to religion?
Politics should never be based upon personal preference but should follow the international guidelines against discrimination. Therefore, the French politicians face a tough decision if they fail to comply with international standards. Will France remain a secular society or will policy-making be based on Catholic standards?
And, if so, have they even considered the implications once religion is mixed with politics? Dangerous ground indeed...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
