Category Archives: War.

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHO IS MAKING HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES IN SUPPLYING ARMS TO THE UKRIAN?

Featured

Posted by in Ukraine/Russian war., War.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S. WHO IS MAKING HAY WHILE THE SUN SHINES IN SUPPLYING ARMS TO THE UKRIAN?

Tags

, ,

( Fifteen minute read)

The human being is apparently the most aggressive and cruel species that has ever inhabited the Earth: There is no other animal that kills members of its own species in such a systematic way as man does (Sangrador, 1982).

So it is not surprising that the current Ukraine war raises difficult political and ethical questions, because these day with technology we fail to see systematic polarisation, because we all assume good and bad are equally distributed among us, but that is just an abstract idea, far from the reality.

If western leaders think that their arms-length encouragement of Ukraine will bring about a Ukrainian military victory, then they are fatally misreading Putin’s intentions and resolve.

Russia’s progress may be slowed, but it’s highly unlikely to be stopped, far less pushed out of Ukraine, and in the meantime the grinding destruction and hideous war crimes continue.

The west’s current approach of supporting Ukraine’s war aim of defeating the aggressor, and providing arms for that purpose while pointedly avoiding direct military intervention, is guaranteed to prolong the war and it is not at all clear that the kind of support we are giving (and not giving) is the right way to go about preserving the Ukrainian nation.

One thing is certain it is that Putin will never accept defeat.

He is already too deeply invested in this war to back off with nothing to show for it.

If Russia’s aim was to exterminate the Ukrainian nation, then the west’s approach is helping to do just that. Encouraging the Ukrainians to continue, however just their cause, is merely making their country uninhabitable.

Of course as with any war the problem is how what and where should support be given but in the background of any war there are those supplying ammunition and arms to both the aggressor and the opposition.

Large defence companies are already seeing their share prices go up as investors anticipate the impact of the war on profits.

Thales shares have risen by 35% since the invasion, while BAE Systems shares are up 32%. Lockheed Martin has seen an increase of 14% and Aero Vironment 63%.

Supplying weapons offers no effective means of reducing violence.

————————————

In wars there is a profound failure to mourn loose of life, because there is nothing good enough to allow the process to begin, leads to an enactment where loss is transferred usually bodily into another.

We accept that no one has the right to take another’s life, however, justified their grievances.

It is true that some people can feel that their own identity, country, belief system, are so under threat that the annihilation of the other, to preserve their own belief systems, is sometimes justified. The aggressive attacker has forfeited their rights and therefore it’s okay to attack them, to kill them, or to hurt them.

In the case of wars people are violent because it feels like the right thing to do.

It follows that supporting Ukraine is the right thing to do, with Britain and Poland now suppling Tanks.

So where are we with the War?

I think when we look at the state of the world we have two conflicting regimes at war with each other: We tend to think that the seed of violence is outside of us and we are exempt from it but ” violence begets violence ” laying the seed for future clashes.

Religious fundamentalism in the form of a particularly virulent form of Islam, which most Muslims do not of course adhere to.

The other is an unfettered fundamentalism, a form of Neo-liberal secular market economics, that promulgates a vicious form of Social Darwinism. “We are all revolutionary in our shopping habits now,” that most of us don’t want to adhere to this idea – but unwittingly play a part in it – and until we realise the damage to climate change and the plight of refugees.

We are actually in a period of profound economic crisis where the human industrial system could threaten to destroy all traces of tradition, certainty and belief.

It is possible that no other currency of communication can be imagined other than death to the enemy. Hence, the dynamic can be perpetuated down the generations. The desire for vengeance and the righting of wrongs can shape an entire life.

Instead of listening to the grievances arising from the Middle East, we in the West continue to employ professional soldiers to perform what might seem acts of state-sanctioned terrorism in the name of foreign policy such as the invasion of Iraq, still a highly peculiar response to the 9/11 attacks.

Can there ever be just wars?

The answer to that question (in a democratic society) is almost always going to be “no” because the test of “Is it a last resort” which is one of the tests for a just war, is never going to be reached, because there is always in a democratic society, an alternative way of reaching your goal, which is to pursue things through the normal political process.

Is this true?

Some violence is more rational or ethically justifiable than others, such as surgical strikes, or limited warfare, the use of things like drones has become very common. The remote drone operator carrying out clean surgical hits allegedly in our name. The pleasure of an Isis general being blown to pieces.

But the question remains. Can there ever be a just war?

How many of us for instance would think it was worthwhile for anyone’s sons or daughters to die in the service of keeping the Falklands Islands British, or during the invasion of Iraq, whether this action is seen as an atrocity or ‘liberation’.

Nelson Mandela was deemed a terrorist, not a rebel with great cause, he remained on the US terrorism list most of his life. Reagan and Thatcher both viewed Mandela as a threat. Indeed, he was at first involved in necessary violent guerrilla actions against the apartheid state.

You can’t defeat an ideology, when it feels based on a justified grievance that belief systems are under threat from the modern world and a wish to regress from the advances of modernity, which seems to lack all spiritual awareness except that of materialism.

——————————————-

Can violence be fought with violence?   Of course it can.

The paradox of fighting violence with violence is within psychology two opposing concepts, one called “compassion fatigue” and the opposite “substitution trauma.” Both associated with chronic stress and its effect on ceasing to feel empathy for others or feeling sympathetic to others..

Currently, because we are shown violent images daily on Television stations and social media it make’s us reflect on the consequences suffered by victims of aggression as well as the different types of aggression that are shown, making many of these scenes appear as “happy violence.”

However, luckily it is still very rare that you’ll see anybody claim that hurting someone else is an inherently moral thing to do.

Unfortunately morality as understood and practiced by real-world human beings, doesn’t always prohibit violence. In fact they make the case that most violence is motivated by morality.

An emotional abduction (Goleman, 2012) can trigger our violence: a lack of self-control, an unexpected event, the protection of a loved one, defence against an out-of-control animal, or even an attack of zeal, can trigger our most heinous thoughts.

Social interaction influences the brain and the brain influences social interaction.

Social behaviour is learned mainly by observing and imitating the actions of others, and secondly, by being directly rewarded and punished for our own actions. In this regard Putin points to the extermination of the native Indians in West (The Establishment Americas, war list is endless ) as defence of his actions.

The best way to change someone’s behaviour is to understand what motivated that behaviour in the first place.

Political leaders are right to condemn terrorist attacks – we do not have to accept the moral codes of others in order to acknowledge that they exist. However, long-term solutions to terrorist atrocities, as well as many other forms of violence such as wars in our society, might benefit from a taking a perspective that the perpetrators believe that what they are doing is good, just, and right.

Russia’s age-old security concerns, perhaps even the very logic of basing today’s international frontiers in that part of Europe on what were internal borders in the USSR, drawn up by communist leaders precisely to prevent Soviet republics and regions from being viable independent states.

“People are only as mad as the other people are deaf” – Adam Philips.

The greatest acts of violence in the last century have in fact been perpetrated by western colonialism and economic expansionism, we are now arguably reaping the backlash of those policies. The exploitation of the poor by the neoliberal economy is one huge factor in social and state violence, which leads to wars and militarism.

So to create a violent attack firstly ignore the underlying factors, poverty inequality and western exploitation, the severe effects of climate change, global warming, arguably caused by unscrupulous western economic policies.

No day goes past without some senior western politician proclaiming that Ukraine will be “successful” and that Russia is “failing” which is clearly nonsense. The risk involved in this – of a third world war – is obvious, and it’s why the west refuses to intervene directly.

Can violence be fought with violence?

Like all wars, Russia’s barbaric attack on Ukraine will finish at some point. How it ends will determine whether Europe is destined to live with a festering sore of bitterness and division at its heart.

How will the war end?

First, there is outright victory by one side or the other. Second, there is a negotiated ceasefire leading to a peace settlement of some kind. Third, an inconclusive outcome, with the fighting gradually subsiding leaving a stalemate or frozen conflict.

The most pressing question is how do we prevent a repeat of the most violent conflict that humanity has ever seen, the second world war.

Remember that world war two didn’t come out of nothing its starting fuse was the peace agreement of world war one.

Outright victory with unconditional surrender by the losing side is rare and military victory frequently led to a much more ambiguous political outcome sowing the seeds of future conflict.

The third way conflicts end is in a stalemate, with no clear winner and no peace agreement, but a gradual ebbing away of the fighting, leaving a more or less chaotic and unstable situation.

None of these analogies will apply precisely.

How will Putin’s latest Ukraine war end?

Outright victory by one side looks the least likely. Even if Russia managed to topple the Zelensky government and install a puppet regime, subjugating the whole country would require a massive army of occupation, far larger than Moscow can muster.

Moscow and Kyiv have set out their opening positions. But these are light-years apart.

Any amputation of Ukraine’s territory will result in a hostile stand-off, with regular upsurges of fighting along a line of separation. Another words back to a full-scale Cold War with Russia.

If NATO were to actively enter the war and make a quick, massive and decisive strike to cripple Russia’s invasion forces it would be the demise of the EU catapulting it back to a situation of the 1930s where there were individual states in Europe pitted against each other.

In the end there will be no classless society or reign of the Just. It will just carry on in the same kind of way. Meanwhile, all we have is the means. The means is how we will be judged.

As some put it: Peace only be achieved without weapons.

We create refugees with our economics and then blame them for wanting a better life.

Tell them (they have names)

and when they turn the bodies over

To count the number of closed eyes. And they tell you 800’000: you say no. that was my uncle. He wore bright coloured shirts and pointy shoes.

2 million: you say no. that was my aunty.

her laughter could sweep you up like

The wind to leaves on the ground.

6 million: you say no. that was my mother.

her arms. the only place I have ever

Not known fear.

3 million: you say no. that was my love.

We used to dance. Oh, how we used to dance.

Or 147: you say no. that was our hope. Our future. The brains of the family.

And when they tell you that you come from war: you say no. I come from hands held in prayer before we eat together.

When they tell you that you come from conflict: you say no. I come from sweat. On skin. glistening. From shining sun.

When they tell you that you come from genocide: you say no. I come from the first smile of a new born child. tiny hands.

When they tell you that you come from rape: you say no. and you tell them about every time you have ever loved.

Tell them that you are from mother carrying you on her back. until you could walk. until you could run. until you could fly.

Tell them that you are from father holding you up to the night sky. full of stars. and saying look, child.

this is what you are made of. From long summers. full moons. flowing rivers. sand dunes.

you tell them that you are an ocean that no cup could ever hold.

JJ Bola | poet

————————————–

In a world where there are disadvantages, neglect and unfairness, there will always be collective and individual activity to reverse the inferior position, by finding other bodies and minds to carry it.

The thing is, no one would ever engage in something that serves the purpose of one’s species’ survival unless one found some pleasure in it.

But does this concept imply while making the revolution enjoying the violence in the process is okay?

Is there really such a convenient separation between a revolution (or rebellion or civil war) and everyday life violence?

If so, one has to use a different register for judgement.

People could receive reinforcement or rewards for their aggressive behaviour in different ways: directly or indirectly.

Every act of violence can feel justified with the currency of communication is the exchange of pain.

It is clear that such questions can and must be discussed.

You can’t defeat an ideology, when it feels based on a justified grievance that belief systems are under threat from the modern world and a wish to regress from the advances of modernity, which seems to lack all spiritual awareness except that of materialism.

When the state is violent, is violence justifiable?

What happens when we tolerate the intolerant? And when we spare the life of a killer? Do we become their enablers?

Is assassination a more justifiable form of political violence than war?

The ethics of selective assassination as a tactic in warfare has not really been given much of consideration until the invention of drones, and with their appears, the acceptance, increasingly that you can execute people before you have tried them.

Freedom is a form of human flourishing that we can only develop or aspire to acquire in relationships with other people.

Violence is destructive of the great fabric of human association that I need in order to develop as a free person.

For example, the Taliban was supposed to be crushed by the invasion of Afghanistan; a very similar kind of organisation to ISIS or ISIL. In the end, as John Alderdice has said, they have to be talked to.

To the Russian President: Vladimir Putin.

Your time will end.

Please end your invasion of the Ukraine . It’s not working. Whatever your reason was for the invasion is no longer valid. You are only hurting your own people. The scansions are incredible and direct and hurtful for your people. It’s not working and it’s not worth destroying both the Ukraine and Russia. However, if you insist on being closed minded an ignorant the please go about it. You will only end up destroying yourself. What you are doing is crazy and stupid.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

Contact: bobdillon33@gmail.com

Advertisement

THE BEADY EYE ASKS. AFTER TWENTY YEARS OF WAR WHAT DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO AFGHANISTAN?

08 Thursday Jul 2021

Posted by in War.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASKS. AFTER TWENTY YEARS OF WAR WHAT DO YOU KNOW WHEN IT COMES TO AFGHANISTAN?

Tags

 

(Six-minute read) 

WOULD IT BE FAIR TO SAY?  

If any country shows us the folly of war surely Afghanistan is that country. 

MOST OF US HAVE NO IDEA WHERE IT IS NEVER MIND THAT IT HAS BEEN IN A STATE OF WAR SINCE ALEXANDER THE GREAT INVADED IT IN THE 4TH CENTURY.  

                                    —————————–  

A landlocked country of 652,000 square kilometers (slightly bigger than France) that got its name from the Pashtuns its main tribal group. Surrounded by Pakistan- Iran- Turkmenia- Uzbekistan- Tajikistan -China, with a present-day population of around 32 million it was once dubbed the roundabout of the ancient world.

You could not be blamed for not noticing that with a deafening silence from its Nato allies, the US is leaving Afghanistan by the backdoor, ending its longest conducted war, without generated a drumbeat.

There has been no surrender, no peace treaty, no victory.

(It has been estimated that 1,405,111 to 2,084,468 lives have been lost since the start of Afghanistan conflicts)

Since the beginning of the war in Afghanistan, over 111,000 Afghans, including militants, civilians, and soldiers, have been killed. Deaths from indirect causes may account for an additional 360,000 Afghans. Approximately three out of four Afghans have been displaced internally, externally, or multiple times.

A total of 2,312 US military personnel have died and 20,066 have been wounded since 2001, with the number of civilian deaths in Afghanistan ranges from 35,000 to 40,000.

UK forces – around five hundred deaths.

Over 62,000 Afghan national security forces were killed and even more Taliban.

Before the US-backed by Britain launched its attack ( ‘Operation Enduring Freedom’   on 27 October 2001) the Russians had left after thirteen years, costing them more than 14,000 Russian lives leaving 1.5 million Afghans dead, five million disabled, and five million refugees – Russia Vietnam.

On Russia’s departure, the Mujahidin (Islamic guerrillas who engage in jihad, fight on behalf of Islam/Allah, or the Islamic community were able to capture large parts of Afghanistancontinuing to fight against the Russian puppet, Najibullah), in 12 YEARS OF CIVIL WARS.

Enter the Taliban a small group of religious students.

In April 1992 they took Kabul and declared an Islamic state.

By the end of 1992, Kabul was devastated thanks to the actions of competing warlords.

An estimated 100,000 Pakistanis trained and fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan from 1994-2001. Saudi Arabia provided funds, goods, and diplomatic support. Osama bin Laden, a wealthy Saudi who during the Soviet occupation had funded and trained Arab Mujahidin recruits, renewed his support, returning to Afghanistan in 1996.

By 2000 the Taliban controlled 90 percent of Afghan territory.

                                            ——————

The major difference between the Taliban and Al Qaeda is in their origins. 

The Taliban only exercise their reign of terror in Pakistan and Afghanistan, while Al-Qaeda is a global terrorist network. 

The sad part remains that both Taliban and Al Qaeda give a picture of Islam that is not a true one.

We are now looking at a new period of civil war in Afghanistan?

It is now on the verge of another Civil war or should I say returning to normal. Afghan National Army Fact

According to Paul Collier and Anke Hoeffler, professors of economics at Oxford University, the estimated total economic cost of the Afghanistan war is equivalent to 105% of a country’s GDP.

Applying this model to the $20.815 billion GDP of Afghanistan, the total economic costs of war lead to $60 million a day, $455.33 million a week, $1821.33 million a month, or a total of $21,856.07 million a year.

Civil wars are not unique to Afganistan.  A four years civil war profoundly shaped the United States as we know it today.

The same is true for Russia. 

The collapse of the Russian Empire in 1917 led to the Russian Civil War and the deaths of millions of people.

Indeed they seem to be a necessary means of reshaping most countries and have increased since the end of the Second World War. Many are relatively short-lived but some have lasted decades.

The causes for such conflicts are primarily economic and not grievance-based.

However, in the Afghanistan case, the Civil war was turned from civil into an extra-state war with the intervener USA on the side the government taking over the bulk of the fighting. 

Conversely, wars can also be transformed into intra-state wars, for example when a state withdraws from an inter-state war. The war ceases to be an intra-state war and is transformed into a war of a different classification of prolonged conflict.

Indeed one could say that civil wars are not caused by ethnic, religious, or other socio-demographic factors. Instead, civil wars are the result of rational individualistic assessments of the costs and benefits of conflict as well as the likelihood of success. 

Availability of finance: Military advantage: Cost of rebellion: Size of Population :Grievances: Time since the last conflict. Weak and corrupt governments: Supported by foreign diasporas: Disputes over local issues: One-sided state killings: The Geography of the country.  

It is estimated that 20% of nations have experienced at least ten years of civil war.

So Where Are We Today?

Although the United States may have had the best of intentions going into Afghanistan, the overall results of U.S. involvement have been a disaster.t

Ideological wars are not won by military campaigns. 

Most Pashtun are loath to join the Afghan military since they tend to be sympathetic to the Taliban, which is largely a Pashtun organization. As a result, the ethnic makeup of the Afghan military does not represent the ethnic makeup of Afghan society.

The present Afghan government will collapse.

The United States’ withdrawal from Afghanistan will result in an internal struggle and even bloodshed.

All human comments are appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THIS CORONA VIRUS IS ASKING ALL OF US WHAT TYPE OF WORLD DO WE WANT?

19 Thursday Mar 2020

Posted by in #whatif.com, 2020: The year we need to change., CORONA VIRUS., COVID-19, Disasters., Disconnection., Evolution, Honesty., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Human values., Humanity., Inequality, Life., Modern day life., Natural World Disasters, Our Common Values., Poverty, Reality., Refugees., Religious Beliefs., Survival., Sustaniability, Technology v Humanity, Telling the truth., The common good., The current state of our oceans., The essence of our humanity., The Future, THE FUTURE OF OUR OCEANS/SEAS, The Obvious., The Refugees, The state of the World., The world to day., Truth, Truthfulness., Unanswered Questions., VALUES, War., WHAT IS TRUTH, What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage., World Leaders, World Organisations., World Politics

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: THIS CORONA VIRUS IS ASKING ALL OF US WHAT TYPE OF WORLD DO WE WANT?

Tags

, , , , , , , , , , ,

 

(Seven-minute read) 

I know that humans are the only type of species that are suitable to manage the earth but it does not make them the right species!

Apparently not.

Did we ever think that we would be living in a world where it is life-threatening to go our side and I am not talking about terrorists or any other Hollywood science fiction movie scenario?

There’s a lot of bad news out there but this is not a death sentence. 

 It’s time to save the world. ” We can use it as we wish”

No one owns the earth. No one has the right to do whatever they want.

We’re not the only thing that lives here, nor are we more important in any way.

We cannot use the world as we please as our actions are endangering not just us but other species. 

Our Earth was meant to be lived on in union with its Ecosystems and we cannot allow that to be broken.

The Coronavirus ( Covid  19 ) is illuminating what is wrong with our world. 

So our most crucial life questions are: 

What Kind of World Do We Want to Leave to Our Children?

Whatever your interest — whether it’s the environment, health care, poverty, or education — there are simple steps each of us can take to make life better not just for someone in our own community. 

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights.” now needs an Earth Declaration. 

Here are the top six of my non-legal binding the goals.  

Use Global Warming to Solve Global Warming.

Take urgent action to combat climate change and its impacts to protect, restore, and promote sustainable use of terrestrial ecosystems, sustainably manage forests, combat desertification, halt and reverse land degradation, and halt biodiversity loss.

Conserve and sustainably use the oceans, seas, and marine resources for sustainable development.

Sustainable Development Goals which will take years for a critical mass of governments to actually rally behind. 

The allocation of resources to fight climate change and other environmental issues over the next decade can be achieved by making a profit for profit sake pay. ( See the previous post on a 0.05% World Aid Commission. How it could be implemented so the costs are spread fairly) 

End poverty in all its forms everywhere.

Global poverty. Reduce inequality within and among countries. Ensure inclusive and equitable quality education and promote lifelong learning opportunities for all.

Expand access to clean drinking water, green energy.

Artificial Intelligence and Automation. 

The 2020s sounds like such a radical futuristic decade however to strengthen the means of implementation and revitalize the global partnership for sustainable development requires a coherent and plausible conception of social justice. A basic income, a periodic cash payment unconditionally delivered to all on an individual basis, without means-test or work requirement.

Stop the sale of arms. 

The estimate of the total value of the global arms trade in 2017 was at least $95 billion.* However, the true figure is likely to be higher. On any given day at any given moment in your life, there are at least 15 wars and armed conflicts actively going on all around the world — even if you’re only hearing about a few of them on the news.

There are an estimated 11-12 million refugees in the world today with between 12-24 million Internally Displaced Persons.

Electoral Reform with Citizens’ Assemblies. 

These aren’t just focus groups or consultations though but for the members to engage in serious, informed reflection on important policy matters with people they may never normally meet.

As Hubert Reeves ( Canadian-French Astrophysicist) say’s, ” Man is the most insane species. He worships an invisible God and Destroys a Visible Nature. Unaware that this Nature he’s destroying is this God he’s worshipping “

Feel free to have idea sex between your ideas and mine so we can come up with even better ideas. It’s a way of saying: “We agree that these are the world’s top priorities right now.”

THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME WARS AND BATTLES HAVE HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

18 Tuesday Feb 2020

Posted by in Afghan War., Technology v Humanity, War., What Needs to change in the World

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE SAY’S: SINCE THE DAWN OF TIME WARS AND BATTLES HAVE HAD A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE COURSE OF HISTORY.

Tags

, , ,

 

(Thirty-five-minute read) 

” Mankind must put an end to war before war puts an end to mankind.” John F. Kennedy

If you ask Google how many wars have they been in the world.

Here is the answer:

” Early humans could have fought wars that went unnoticed. Sources range from 100,000 to 300,000 WARS.”

Then if you look at wikipedia.org and ask how many are current wars, on top of the list of the 40 active conflicts/ wars around the world at the moment, the Afghanistan conflict is number one, because of the letter A. 

You could not be blamed for wondering that after so many wars why it is in these modern days of interconnectivity other than the insanity of one or more leaders that causes wars. The boundary between rational and non-rational is fuzzy. There must exist incentives for conflict and some barriers to the ability to reach an enforceable bargain. 

The ideological change is both the most common cause of conflict and the root of most wars, but there is rarely only one cause of dispute.

Not only do we go to war we supply arms to the potential adversity. 

War is a better-known word in England that Afghanistan.

(According to Wikipedia,) The Kingdom of England has fought conflicts in 171 of the world’s 193 countries that are currently UN member states, or nine out of ten of all countries. So it is not surprising to learn that the British invasion and occupation of Afghanistan in the late 1830s. 

You could say England has been at war from the Battle of Edgehill (October 1642) 

What do you define as a war? What do you define as the UK?

Take the nicely named Troubles in Northern Ireland – 30 years.

(The leftover of the Irish War of Independence 2 years has its origins in the 12th century when England invaded to create its first colony.)

As with all wars once they start the original reasons are eventually forgotten in the devastation inflicted. 

World war one started in 1914 after four years it left over 15 million people dead and set the stage for World war two six short years.

The Holocaust alone resulted in over 11 million people killed, 6 million of which were Jewish. Somewhere between 22 and 26 million men died in battle during the war. In the final act of the war, between 70,000 and 80,000 Japanese were killed when the U.S. dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Vietnam War lasted for 19 years and 5 months.

The Falklands 10-week. 

The Gulf War six months was a war waged by coalition forces from 35 nations led by the United States against Iraq in response to Iraq’s invasion and annexation of Kuwait arising from oil pricing and production disputes.

The ongoing war of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict with Israel established in 1948 continues to the present day on various levels.

Or the ongoing Al-Qaeda insurgency in Yemen now 22 years.

So here is what I have learned about the Afghan wars.

During the nineteenth century, two large European empires vied for dominance in Central Asia. In what was called the “Great Game,” the Russian Empire moved south while the British Empire moved north from its so-called crown jewel, colonial India.

Their interests collided in Afghanistan, resulting in the First Anglo-Afghan War of 1839 to 1842.

This resulted in a series of unsuccessful wars for the British to control Afghanistan, Bukhara, and Turkey. The British lost at all four wars — the First Anglo-Saxon War (1838), the First Anglo-Sikh War (1843), the Second Anglo-Sikh War (1848) and the Second Anglo-Afghan War (1878) — resulting in Russia taking control of several Khanates including Bukhara.

Following this great victory over the British, Afghanistan maintained its independence and continued to play the two European powers off of each other for three more decades.

Soviet-Afghan War.

Afghanistan is not called the “graveyard of empires” for nothing.

The Soviet-Afghan War lasted over nine years, from December 1979 to February 1989. Insurgent groups are known collectively as the mujahideen, as well as smaller Maoist groups, fought a guerrilla war against the Soviet Army and the Democratic Republic of Afghanistan government, mostly in the countryside. The mujahideen groups were backed primarily by the United States, Saudi Arabia, and Pakistan, making it a Cold War proxy war. Between 562,000 and 2,000,000 civilians were killed and millions of Afghans fled the country as refugees, mostly to Pakistan and Iran.

More than nine years of direct involvement and occupation.

On April 27, 1978, a Soviet-supported communist government took over the country with the first Soviet deployment into Afghanistan on December 24, 1979. They had President Amin put to death because he was talking to the Yanks and installed their own leader, President Babrak Karmal.

The Soviets resorted to using napalm, poison gas and helicopter gunships against the Mujahideen – but they experienced exactly the same military scenario the Americans had done in Vietnam. 

In the years that followed, more than 870,000 Afghans were killed, three million were maimed or wounded, a million were internally displaced and over five million were forced to flee the country.

It became a source of embarrassment for the Soviet Union as the Mujahideen (a guerilla force on a holy mission for Allah) would come down from the mountains in the summer with US-supplied Stinger missiles and after around 13,000 Soviet troops were killed the Russian had had enough with the country becoming one of the poorest nations in the world. 

By 1982 some 2.8 million Afghans had sought asylum in Pakistan, and another 1.5 million had fled to Iran. The Soviets suffered some 15,000 dead and many more injured. 1988 the Soviet Union signed an accord with the United States, Pakistan, and Afghanistan and agreed to withdraw its troops.

Mikhail Gorbachev took the U.S.S.R. out of Afghanistan.

Men start growing beads and destroy all non-islamic idols and statues- al-Qaid. 

By the end of the 1980s, the Mujahideen was at war with itself in Afghanistan with hard-line Taliban fighters. The word Taliban means “students”

By 1982, the Mujahideen controlled 75% of Afghanistan despite fighting the might of the world’s second most powerful military power.

On 25 April 1992, a civil war had ignited between three, later five or six, mujahideen armies, which escalated into another full-blown conflict. By mid-1994, Kabul’s original population of two million had dropped to 500,000. In 1995–96, the new militia Taliban, supported by Pakistan and ISI, had grown to be the strongest force.

On September 2001 the 9/11 terrorist attack which the USA believed that Osama Bin Laden head of al-Qaida was the behind the attacks. The United States began bombing Afghanistan and 10 years later kill Osama.

As of August 2016, about 104,000 people have been killed in the war in Afghanistan since 2001, more than 31,000 being civilians.

With the rising of ISIS in Afghanistan, the country was plunged into a new humanitarian emergency and Afghans into a new internally displacement and the refugee crisis.

Since invading in 2001, the United States has poured more than $117 billion into Afghanistan.

The war has enjoyed bipartisan support from the beginning. Bush launched it. Obama began his administration approving a “surge” of 30,000 troops for what he called the “good war.”  

The United States went into Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks to get bin Laden, quash Al Qaeda and punish the Taliban for harbouring them. Bin Laden is dead; Al Qaeda has metastasized across the region; the Taliban have been hunted for 16 years.

Now there is no clear vision of where we’re headed.

A blank check to wage war anywhere, any time, for any length, 

To me it is quite clear with Trump “where we’re headed”—to more years of endless war without victory, wasting more lives ensnared in a war with no exit. 

So the situation isn’t complicated:

The origins of opium date as far back at 3400 B.C

There is enough opium production in Afghanistan (something the US was never truly capable of controlling or suppressing.) to ensure that the current war ends in a dream-like state and armed nation-building does not work.

Forty years might seem a long time but its nothing compared to wars back in the days when wars lasted from anything up to 700 years.

So here are few brewing for the future. 

The U.S.A. vs. Iran.

Why? 

Because of Donal Trump re-election. His inability to learn from Vietnam or Afghan that military power will mean little when drawing into a decades-long guerrilla war with factions of the Iranian regime.

Egypt vs. Ethiopia.

Why?

Because the Ethiopia Blue Nile dam is 60% completed…

Iran vs. Saudi Arabia.

Why?

Because the collapse of Lebanon, the Arab Spring, the Yemen civil war, and the Qatari blockade are all significant global geopolitical events spawned by tensions between Iran and Saudi Arabia. The two nations are already engaged in numerous proxy wars in Syria, Yemen and Iraq, and as time goes on this list is only set to grow in size. 

North Korea vs. the U.S.A.

Why?

Because North Korea operates as a military dictatorship,

Russia vs. NATO.

Why?

Because Nato needs to justify its existence. 

The Irish have always been noted for a complete disregard for time.

Venezuelan Civil War.
 
Why?
 
Because it is safe to say things are not going too well in Venezuela.

South China Sea War.

Why?

Because it is home to 10% of the world’s fisheries and tens of billions of barrels of oil.

Amazon Apps ves Humanity 

Why?

Because we were too lazy and gave away all of our data. 

Climate War.

Why?

Because this could very well be the catalyst to end all wars. 

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks and abuse chucked in the bin. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BEADY ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO REMOVE THE IMMUNITY OF PROFIT SEEKING ALGORITHMS,THE WORLD BANK AND THE IMF.

01 Sunday Apr 2018

Posted by in Algorithms., Artificial Intelligence., Fourth Industrial Revolution., GDP., HUMAN INTELLIGENCE, Humanity., Our Common Values., Social Media, Sustaniability, Technology, The essence of our humanity., The Obvious., The world to day., Unanswered Questions., War., What Needs to change in the World, Where's the Global Outrage.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY ASK’S: IS IT TIME TO REMOVE THE IMMUNITY OF PROFIT SEEKING ALGORITHMS,THE WORLD BANK AND THE IMF.

Tags

, , , , , , , ,

 

( A seven-minute read)

We all know that Social Media as it is called is having an effect on many if not all aspects of society both for good and bad.

TECHNOLOGY is now described as the third Industrial Revolution, with profit-seeking algorithms being the mercenary soldiers of the platforms on which Social media relies that are not only going to cause an algorithm war that will continue to unstabilize the world we live in.Résultat de recherche d'images pour "picture cyberwar"

An algorithm war will be the great oxymoron of our time.

Why will they cause a war? A digitally controlled systems war.

Because of originality.

At the moment it is vital that natural substances and public knowledge remain in the public domain so that we all have equal access to the collective humanity’s intelligence. Soon, however, we will not know who owns what, seed patenting, plants, medicines, and genetic materials, data, you name it and some algorithm will be controlling it.  The more a nation or group of people is dependent upon digital systems, the more vulnerable they will become.

If we are to have a planet where companies can roam the planet in search of ever cheaper means of making a profit with these algorithms we must demand a global minimum wage.

Algorithms are already addictive. Promoted by multinational corporations that are avoiding taxes by their home countries.

The most effective way to take back control is to establish a Cloud Strongroom where all software programmes, are registered to their origins and a copy of the original program is held for future reference, transparency, available to all.

There is no doubt about the impact of AI. What will be automated next?

AI is only one fish in a vast ocean of technological progress.

” You can’t connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backward.” Jobs.

Scientific data is piling up around us telling us that we are currently destroying what is left of the earth  >  deforestation, warming and acidification of oceans, CO2 emissions, melting ice caps, species extinction 100 to 1000 times faster than before the last Industrial Revolution, overfishing, soil degradation, over-exploitation of the earth ecosystem, running out of oil,  pollution of drinking water, breathable air etc.

The list is endless combining to what we call human progress – GDP.

When in reality what is need is to decouple GDP from material throughput.

Consumption in rich countries is outpacing CDP growth. Perhaps if we placed a moratorium on Advertising for a few years we might reduce consumption and release us from the tyranny of growth at any cost.

If we peel back the false promises of technology the problems we have are much deeper causes, to tackle such as inequality, and consumption that is putting our plant at risk. Not to mention technology replacing many jobs creating a crisis of unemployment.

It’s time before the technology of profit-seeking algorithms plunders what is left of the world resources that we redistribute on merit bases that reflect the population of a country and their development needs the voting power within the United Nations, the World Bank, the IMF, the WTO.

If you look at the World Bank and the IMF you will see that most of the countries representatives in both institutions are finance ministers, or central bank governors while the WTO has trade ministers neither of which have people or the environment as their mantra.

This needs to be done as

Our major world institutions are long overdue in need of reform.

In order to create a fairer global economy is it not the time to democratize the major global institution’s and remove the veto powers.

Right now votes are apportioned to each country according to the financial shares in the institutions with the rich countries claiming over 60%.

The World Trade Organisation is technically democratic with one vote for each member state, but in reality, it is the countries with the biggest markets that pull the punches.

The poorer countries are don’t have the negotiating prowess or the funds to make their voices heard.

Instead of a few powerful countries setting the agendas and predetermining decisions in what is called the green room a large dose of transparency is required allowing the media to access whether the rules and penalties stand up to the common sense notion of fairness.

Perhaps we can get social media to evolve to where it is the people of countries that elect who represents them in these Institutions.

If we don’t bring our institution into the technological age there is little likelihood that the next wave of general learning algorithms (that will be able to solve problems with us specifying how) will place power in our hands but rather in the hands of a few companies and as we have witnessed recently power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.

When men run out of words they reach for their swords, not their mobile phones.

One way or the other Algrothims are going to change human history.

All human comments appreciated. All like click chucked in the bin.

 

THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH SO MANY WARS IN THE WORLD WHY IS ENGLAND TURNING ITS BACK ON THE ASPIRATION OF A UNITED PEACEFUL EUROPE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CURRENT WARS WE HAVE IN THE WORLD.

25 Thursday Jan 2018

Posted by in War.

≈ Comments Off on THE BEADY EYE ASK’S: WITH SO MANY WARS IN THE WORLD WHY IS ENGLAND TURNING ITS BACK ON THE ASPIRATION OF A UNITED PEACEFUL EUROPE. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY CURRENT WARS WE HAVE IN THE WORLD.

Tags

, , , ,

 

( A Fifteen Minute read)

As you read this, there are more than 40 conflicts unfolding in countries around the world. You could not be blamed for thinking that most of the world is in conflict.

They all seem to overflow into one great swam of human misery that occupy our News on a daily basis.

These days wars are more to do with identity based in historical, geographical, political, social, cultural and economic realities.

The EU endeavors to appease these differences, however the European Community needs to stop worry about protecting yesterday’s accomplishments rather than facing tomorrow’s challenges.

THIS IS HIGHLIGHTED BY ENGLAND PENDING DEPARTURE LEADING TO THE   QUESTION:

DOES A DEFINABLE, IF NASCENT EUROPEAN IDENTITY EXIST OR IS IT LIKE ALL OTHERS.

It should come as no great surprise that most EU citizens regard themselves as belonging within a number of culturally defined groups and do not normally feel that these overlapping identities are incompatible. 

As we are now witnessing with England’s departure and the divide between northern Europe and the Southern Europe.

The critical moments that lead to war are those when one or more identities take precedence over the others. So the objective of the EU must be to reach a stage at which regional, national, European and other identities are regarded as compatible rather than competitive.

This stage has not yet been reached and it may be argued that reaching this plateau is the major challenge which the Union faces in the next century.

It is extremely difficult to construct a European cultural project which embraces both the differences in European cultures and their common roots but in a world now driven more and more by technology that must be the objective, not isolation. 

Europe is by far the most peaceful region in the world. Yet the continent is not immune to war – Britain, France, Belgium and others are heavily involved in external conflict in the Middle East, and face a growing threat to peace from international terrorism.

It is not inevitable that the logic of unity and interdependence will prevail and there is a consequent danger of a return to a dangerously fragmented Europe with potentially devastating consequences.

So given all the dire warnings from either side about the security of Europe if Britain leaves the EU, does the IEP foresee a change in the region’s fortunes in the event of Brexit?

In the short-term it’s unlikely to have an effect.

The longer-term ramifications, more for Britain than for [the rest of] Europe, would probably depend on what the economic outcome of a British exit would be. If there’s a further deterioration in the economy in England we may well witness an increase in violence.

This is a country that is full of places of worship that are thronged with glorification of war, saturated with historical blood, building two new aircraft carriers, while its people are on trolleys in hospitals.

Leaving the EU for all the wrong reasons, expecting to retain all the advantages of being in the EU but none of the responsibilities and costs.

A self-inflicted position.

At the moment they have the best trade deal possible – the best one imaginable – which is a customs union and access to the European Single Market and the European Economic Area.

The sites covers every ongoing conflict around the world, from Colombia to the Ogaden, from Kashmir to Western Sahara. Pictured, North Korean soldiers march and shout slogans during a military parade marking the 105th birth anniversary of country's founding father, Kim Il Sung in Pyongyang, North Korea April 15, 2017.

We are now further away from world peace than at any time in the past 10 years – and it’s creating a global ‘peace inequality’ gap.

There are now just 10 countries which can be considered truly at peace – in other words, not engaged in any conflicts either internally or externally, completely free from conflict.

The lack of a solution to the refugee crisis and an increase in deaths from major terrorist incidents have all contributed to the world being less peaceful in 2016.

Many of the conflicts  don’t get the media or policy attention of the wars in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan or Ukraine, and they may not have the same geopolitical or economic importance.

All wars need arms so who is supplying the arms:

Fueling the deadly conflicts for profit.

War kills. And war sells.

Where do nations from every corner of the planet look when they want to increase their arsenals?

Ten countries are responsible for the vast majority of all major arms exports, accounting for 90 percent of global sales with the United States, the world’s largest arms dealers.

The world’s top six major arms exporters are the United States, Britain, Russia, Germany, France and China. Together, they account for 74 percent of the total volume of exports.

Sales are in the region of $31.bn

If you don’t believe me here below is a link to interactive map.

The map is part of a series of articles from IRIN around the concept of forgotten wars.is an interactive map of the current conflicts in the world.

http://www.irinnews.org/feature/2015/07/30/mapped-worlds-conflicts (@irinnews)

It examines the root causes, human cost and potential for peace of conflicts in Myanmar, Casamance, South Kordofan, southern Thailand, and Mindanao in the Philippines.

The map marks each conflict with a red dot.

It is sized to represent how long the battle has been going on,  with the

larger dots representing those that have lasted the longest.

To see more about each conflict, click on the dot.

This brings up a fact box explaining the nature of the conflict, when it began and how many deaths have resulted from it.

Syria has been embroiled in civil war, that is also the biggest and most complex proxy war the world has witnessed.

Mexico’s drug war, fueled by 54 ruthless cartels lust for territory, cash, power and violence has slaughtered as many as 85,000 people since 2006.

Mali, AL-Qaeda took root in the country’s north. Around 4,000 people have been killed in Mali since 2012.

Afghanistan, Taliban and IS.

Iraq, the 2003 US-led Iraq war killed up to a million Iraqis, gave birth to Islamic State.

The conflicts in Afghanistan and Iraq have been going for well over a decade, then it spilled into Syria in 2011, and afterwards into Libya and Yemen.

Yemen, AL-Qaeda and IS have fighters in Yemen, over 7,600 people have been killed in the past two years.

Pakistan, since the 9/11 outrage in 2001, war has been raging between the Taliban, IS.

Lebanon, Nearly a quarter of Lebanon’s population is made up of Syrian refugees and sectarian division has risen as IS battles with the Shia militant group Hezbollah.

Libya, 35,000 people have been killed since the Arab Spring uprising.

Democratic Republic Of Congo, more than 70 groups are fighting despite the presence of 20,000 UN troops.

Somalia, Al-Shabaab had 9,000 fighters in Somalia. IS has a foothold in Somalia and is trying to recruit Al-Shabaab fighters.

India,a fragile ceasefire since 2003 with Kashmir, but still exchange fire across the contested border.

South Sudan, over 50,000 people have been killed and more than 1.6 million displaced since war broke out in 2013. It has raged for more than 60 years.

Egypt, at war against Islamist militants in the Sinai.

Central African Republic, 6,000 people have been killed in the Central African Republic, with 25 per cent of the 4.6 million population displaced.

Ukraine, Russia annexed Crimea in 2014.

Nigeria, 50,000 people have died in the war between regime forces and Islamic State-affiliates Boko Haram.

Israel -Palestine, has forced tens of thousands of Arabs from homes in land grabs.

Turkey, fighting the Kurdish Workers Party the PKK, is hostile to the Kurdish Democratic Unity Party’s armed wing, the YPG, but has good relations with the Kurdish Peshmerga of Northern Iraq. The Turkish and Syrian Kurds are fighting IS and others in Syria but are against the Turkish government.

Potential Wars:

North Korea, technically, it has never stopped being at war with the South since 1953.

East China sea, South China Sea. 

Will any end soon. Not likely.

 

This autocracy must stop.

The shelf-life of weapons is often longer than the governments and situations they were sold to.

Britain – is now the world’s second largest arms exporter after America – around 120,000 people are employed in weapons dealing.

Two-thirds of UK weapons have been sold to Middle Eastern countries.

If Europe is to escape the cauldron of fragmentation and national strife our shared bonds of European identity must be more broadly defined, given concrete expression and have the flexibility necessary to create an outward-looking and self-confident union of people’s.

The logic of global socio-economic interdependence that spells integration and the logic of ethnicity and nationality that demands separation both apply.

If England leaves the EU without a satisfactory solution to the Irish Border it could reignite one of the longest conflicts in the world going back 700 years.

To make the Irish less Irish backfired once and it will again.

With the coming Climate Change, doubts about the science are being replaced by doubts about the motives of scientists and their political supporters.

Once this kind of cynicism takes hold, is there any hope for the truth?

Climate change deniers argue they are only trying to discover the truth.

We should all be sceptical about that.

No Technology, No Artificial Intelligence, No inequality adjustment, No Frontiers, No Nuclear weapons, No alliances, not anything is going to stop migration.

Where will the next War be?

It will be between the countries relying on the Nile for power and water.

The toll of decades-long conflicts – from Colombia to the Ogaden, from Kashmir to Western Sahara – will be just as devastating for the people who do not live there.

All of the above presupposes that the development of Europe’s cultural identity is a worthy and attainable goal. 

Europe, when you think about it, is a pretty small place. Jump on a plane in London and you can be all the way across the continent, in big old Russia, within just a few hours.

Europe stresses the importance of a continuing dialogue between the present and the past.

All human comments appreciated. All like clicks chucked in the bin.