Username: Password:
Welcome! Please Sign In or Register

Global Issues

Share your opinions on international politics as well issues that affect us.

Recent Happenings

22 days ago

The latest science is showing that sun spot cycles and very slight deviations in the planets orbit can cause significant climate change. History suggests that these shifts usually occur quickly, last for 100-200 years, then gradually abate. We're also beginning to find out that while CO2 emissions do have an impact on climate change, it's really only really responsible for about 35-40% of the increase in temperature over the past 200 years.

In short, there are many other variables going into play here, more than we initially realized.

What should be our reaction then, given the newest data that's coming out about this issue? Obviously the solution would be to move away from fossil fuels over time, and to move towards more sustainable agricultural and transportation systems, but there is a clear element of the uncontrollable here as well. We can't do much to shield the planet from the rays of the sun, nor can we adjust the orbit of the earth.

These shifts towards more sustainable environmental systems should be occurring anyways, regardless of whether climate change is a factor or not. Damage to our water table, soil resources, and air are impacting human health in very profound ways.

In short, we cannot react in an extreme manner to this situation. Nor should we pass a massive climate change bill that will hurt businesses, implement austerity, and encourage speculation in carbon credits in the world's stock markets.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 3 Agree / 0 Disagree

43 days ago

Afghanistan has always been a trouble spot because of geography. It stands right at the crossroads between East and West, and as such, it has always been an area that has been battled for by various people, from Alexander the Great through to today. The area has both Western and Eastern cultural antecedents and the area's main political organization is the tribe. This is not a centrally organized society, it is organized from the bottom up.

Conquering powers have consistently sought to domesticate this mountainous corner of the world, yet all have always left with their tails caught between their legs. Given this history, it is astonishing that we continue to commit US forces to the region in an apparent nation-building effort. Sure, we can continue to bomb Afghan villages, hunt al-Qaeda out in the provinces, build huge elaborate military bases and send drones to drop bombs on Pakistan, but it won't halt the attacks by Islamic militants. Terrorists and insurgent groups are not conventional forces, they don't play by the same rules of traditional warfare. These underground terrorist groups are highly flexible, moving from one destabilized region to the next as it changes shape and color. They plan and execute the next terrorist attack, whether it be in the Philippines, Indonesia, Britain, India, Spain, or Yemen then they fade back into the shadows.

In short, we are fighting the wrong enemy, using the wrong tools, on the wrong battlefield. Furthermore, the current strategy in Afghanistan is unsustainable and cannot succeed given the present political situation. The cost of the Afghanistan war is rising. Tens of thousands of Afghan civilians had been killed since the beginning of the conflict and that number is sure to rise on both sides of the conflict as Obama seeks to escalate the war.

During this war, we have stumbled upon a curious mix of armed groups that include drug dealers and traffickers (poppy seeds are the most profitable cash crop in Afghanistan), criminal gangs, tribal militias, death squads and mercenaries. In short, we are right in the center of a civil war that has been embroiling this country at least since the 1970's. The Pashtuns, who dominate the Taliban and are the traditional rulers of Afghanistan, are battling the Tajiks and Uzbeks, which dominate the current government, which is deeply corrupt, incompetent and weak; it doesn't even control a majority of Afghanistan's territory. It certainly cannot be sustained without American help.

Here's the reality: we are losing the Afghan war. When we invaded Afghanistan 8 years ago, they controlled about 80% of the territory. Today that percentage has crept up to over 50%, other areas are in tribal control, out of the grips of either the Taliban or the central government. The Taliban brazenly attacks targets public areas in the capital of Kabul, dominates the rural areas of the country, and regularly kidnaps foreigners for random. In short, it is not a very pleasant spot to land in, and its only getting worse.

No one seems to be able to articulate as to why we're in Afghanistan. Bush didn't do so clearly and neither does Obama. Is it to hunt down Osama bin Laden and al-Qaeda? Is it to consolidate progress (however that's defined)? Have we declared war on the Taliban? Are we building democracy there? Are we "liberating" the women of Afghanistan? The absurdity of these questions, which in my view are used as thought terminating cliches and rhetoric, exposes the absurdity of this war. This confusion of purpose seems to mirror the confusion on the ground. We don't know what we're doing from a military standpoint. Here's the question we should be asking: what exactly are we doing in Afghanistan? It's a simple question, but one which isn't asked nearly enough.

Our military commanders know a lot about weapons systems and conventional warfare but know next to nothing about nuances of asymmetrical and irregular warfare. What always happens in Afghanistan is that we might secure a piece of territory, the Taliban withdraws, usually to sanctuaries in Pakistan. We declare the operation a success, but slowly the Taliban creep back into the "cleansed" territory. The roadside bombs continue to exact their deadly toll on our troops and civilians. And the Afghan people continue to suffer under the aegis of constant war for almost 30 years straight.

The whole situation is just downright tragic.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

79 days ago

I was uninsured until I was about 35 years old and then I only bought a $10,000 deductible policy. I did not get health insurance until I was in my forties. In the late 1960's and 1970's your family could have a baby for less than $1000. Other procedures were also cheap. It made a lot more sense to self-insure and pay out of the pocket. What happened?

The government got into the picture with medicare and medicaid. Those really got rolling in the late 1960's. That in itself wasn't the problem but the administration was the key cause to the distortion. You could go to any doctor you wanted and basically get anything done you wanted. A true government plan places cost controls, and limits choices. This did not happen and costs went through the roof. I am on medicare now because my insurance company makes the government the prime coverage when I turned 65.

When I go to the doctor's office about twice a year for the checkups that I must have to keep my insurance company happy, with its health care monitoring system, the place is crawling with geezers who are there for minor problems. Trust me, I know that this is true. This drain causes a strain on the system.

The government broke it and now the mopes in the government say: "Gee, the system is broken. WE are going to fix it." That is really rich.

votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

99 days ago

Lets consider for a second the two major conflicts America is fighting in Iraq and Afghanistan. As of today, the out of pocket costs of those two wars is in excess of $900 billion.

Two economists, Nobel prize winner Joseph Stiglitz and Harvard professor Linda Bilmes have estimated that in between the incurred future costs of veterans benefits, interest on the debt created from funding the war, the forgone use of resources that would have gone for more productive purposes and other costs amount to $3 trillion! Our government has wasted lives and treasure on wars that have served no discernible benefit to the American people. The only folks who benefit here is the military/industrial/financial complex that President Eisenhower warned us about in his farewell address.

It is now a proven fact that the US invasion of Iraq was based on lies and deception. The only real immediate beneficiaries of this war were the armaments industry, the oil industry, Blackwater, Halliburton, and Muslim extremists who used our wars in the region as recruitment tools. No one else gained any benefit here. Iraq was a threat to no one and finding Saddam Hussein and hanging him after a politically motivated trial had no effect on ending the war in Iraq.

The cost of our wars are a huge burden on our country, which is already struggling under the weight of other debts. The War in Iraq by itself has lasted longer than WW2, yet the main outcome has been a Shi'ite dominated government that's closely aligned with Iran.

Obama, for all his campaign promises to end the war in Iraq, has escalated another one in Afghanistan and started a new one in Pakistan which has already displaced 2 million people and threatens to destabilize a nuclear armed country. The Caucasus is still a hotbed of superpower confrontation between the US and Russia that can escalate into an all out proxy conflict at any point.

Never mind that we really can't afford these wars, how about the threat they pose to international security? We seem to be playing with fire here on many different fronts.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

A dangerous piece of legislation, granting sweeping and virtually uncontrollable powers to government and its agencies.

Now that it has not been repealed, nor is there any official discussion (to my knowledge) of it so being. Governments NEVER give up powers once they have them, without a damn hard fight, whether those are powers of taxation or "security."


Original review:
Here's something for the ardent defenders of this piece of legislation to consider.  As it stands now, in a few short months Barack Obama will be president, and his party in control of both houses.  Historically, governments are reluctant to give up controlling powers once they have acquired them, and there is no surety this legislation will be repealed
.
With that in mind, and given the fear that some elements of the right have of Obama, it will be interesting to see how they talk about this intrusive, constitution trampling legislation once their boys aren't in the drivers seat.
votes 3 Helpful / 1 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

A terrible day which, looking back on it, changed our nation in a very profound way. 3,000 lives were lost in an act of incredible, dramatic brutality. But much more was lost on that day.

I believe that history will ultimately record that on that day, America began a march towards stronger central state authority, and dare I say it, a police state.

That's sad, especially considering the ideals which our nation was founded upon.

We're fighting a war against nobody in particular, but rather a tactic. No wonder it is hard to quantify losses and wins in such a conflict--it's almost impossible to determine who we're fighting to begin with! This war on terrorism has become a cause for mass hysteria and an excuse for the government doing anything.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

I consider this the largest and most dangerous of all the new bureaucracies established after 9/11 by the Bush Administration. It is going to be near impossible to dismantle this behemoth which effectively centralizes the functions of a police state.
votes 2 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

Somehow the Transportation Department managed to find 50,000 mostly middle aged people who were willing enough to go through their fellow citizens dirty laundry while taking themselves seriously at the same time!!

This is probably one of the most inefficient government operations I've had to deal with. And that's saying a lot.

The best airport security people I've dealt with are the Israelis. Those guys don't mess around, but they're very efficient. They have plenty of experience obviously, given their unique security needs. Our people are amateurs by comparison.
votes 1 Helpful / 0 Funny / 0 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

Who???

Cares...

This entry just demonstrates the fleeting nature of pop culture.
votes 0 Helpful / 0 Funny / 1 Agree / 0 Disagree

100 days ago

I've always supported our efforts to increase our presence in outer space. Some decry it as a waste of taxpayer dollars, but I believe that investment in key science drivers like space exploration, high energy physics and biomedical research should be promoted for technological modernization. America has always been a leader in the sciences--we should not loose this distinction because of regressive social policies and austere economic policies.

Surely these are investments that are far more worthwhile then giving it to the banks so they can cover up their losses in derivatives and toxic mortgages.
votes 3 Helpful / 0 Funny / 2 Agree / 0 Disagree

View Next Subject: Ideology

Top Global Issues Reviewers