ok it's Iraq but it's interesting
-
Here is a link to a blog put up by Morgan on a different Blog. There are a
number of entries that tie more to your topic than theirs. Enjoy.
16 years ago
Friday, June 4, 2010
Friday, October 30, 2009
Definitions
Blogging- To write entries in, add material to or maintain a weblog
Blogger- A person who keeps and updates a blog
Feed Burner- Is a webfeed management and provides custom RSS feeds and management tools
to bloggers, pod casters and other web based content publishers.
2 Cents Worth- A person giving an opinion (usually unsolicited opinion) on a subject.
Blogging- To write entries in, add material to or maintain a weblog
Blogger- A person who keeps and updates a blog
Feed Burner- Is a webfeed management and provides custom RSS feeds and management tools
to bloggers, pod casters and other web based content publishers.
2 Cents Worth- A person giving an opinion (usually unsolicited opinion) on a subject.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
The Six-Day War
While my first entry was from an American perspective, this one is from a Middle-Eastern point-of-view. The subject is a timeline of the Six-Day War of June 1967. It can be found on the Zion-Israel Information Center's Web site, at www.zionism-israel.com/his/six_day_war_timeline.htm.
The chronology is in three sections:
The chronology is in three sections:
- the Prologue
- the War
- the Aftermath
The Prologue is a list of events between June 18, 1953, and June 2, 1967.
The section, on the war itself, is a four-column table. Events are listed by day in the first column. The next three columns list times and events on the Egyptian, Jordanian, and Syrian Fronts.
The Aftermath section is similar to the Prologue. It lists some of the more important events from June 19, 1967, to September 5, 1972.
Some of the entries have links to other documents, including some maps. Someone else's perspective(s) were interesting reading. Even though I lived thousands of miles from the events described, the Six-Day War is important to me on two "counts" (for lack of a better word):
- It started on June 5, 1967, my 17th birthday;
- Exactly one year later, then-U.S. Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy would lose his life because of his support for Israel.
The Suez Canal
The first article I chose is “The 1956 Suez Crisis,” and it can be found at http://www.press.umich.edu/pdf/0472108670-06.pdf.
(Two cautions:
-- The article is 30 pages long.
-- I did not know until I opened the document that it was password-protected; the only option I had was to read it. I wanted to know why. I found out that it is a chapter from the book, Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy, written by Rose McDermott, and published in 1998 by the University of Michigan Press.)
The article can be connected to three Social Studies topics: geography; politics; and history. Geographically, the Suez Canal and its surrounding environments are places, which have different meanings to different people. They are in Egypt. Depending on this meaning, some people are willing to do whatever is necessary to take something away from the current owner. Some of these politically-motivated actions carry a greater level of risk. Once the person or group has taken possession of the object of their desire, they have to keep it. Nothing lasts forever. Eventually, someone else will come along and become the new owner. This continuous cycle of events is added to the historical record. The idea of a shipping channel in the eastern Mediterranean area is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. In modern times, construction began in 1859. The Suez Canal opened in 1869, the same year the east and west coasts of the United States were connected by the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads.
By 1950, Egypt was approaching the limit of its tolerance of British occupation and control. Gamal Abdel Nasser became the country's President in 1952, shortly after the British were evicted. This did not resolve the disagreements that still existed between Egypt, France, and Britain. These two countries still felt that they should have a say in matters related to this international waterway. The role of the United States was still minimal. Harry Truman was President, and he was **not** willing to get involved in the affairs of countries along the Mediterranean Sea. This would change in January 1953, with the inauguration of Dwight Eisenhower. He and his advisors, particularly new Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, **were** interested in becoming meddlers. Nasser was not happy with this development. He did not want to be told how he should conduct Egypt's affairs.
As noted in The Lemon Tree, "Nasser's emergence would rattle officials from Washington to London to Paris to Tel Aviv [and] tensions between Egypt and Israel would increase in the coming years" (Tolan, 102). Nasser took his risk in July 1956. He closed the Suez Canal. His action was not popular with either Britain, France, or the United States. One of his objectives was to raise the fees paid by the Canal's users and use the money to help fund the construction of the Aswan Dam. The United States did eventually get involved by providing financial support to for the Aswan project, in exchange for the option of increasing military presence in the Middle East. Eisenhower knew that his decision had a potentially serious risk. This was during the early days of the Cold War. Any increase of military strength in this area by the United States would be interpreted by the Soviet Union as a threat to its national security.
(As important as the Canal was to the region, author Tolan only makes a few refernces to it in the main portion of the book. He devotes at least as much coverage in the Notes section.)
The Suez crisis lasted approximately four months. In early November, a truce was announced by the United Nations. One of the conditions of the truce was that the British would withdraw their remaining troops by the end of 1956. The other condition, that Israel withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip, was not completed until the spring of 1957. We know this would not be a long-term arrangement.
John
(Two cautions:
-- The article is 30 pages long.
-- I did not know until I opened the document that it was password-protected; the only option I had was to read it. I wanted to know why. I found out that it is a chapter from the book, Risk-Taking in International Politics: Prospect Theory in American Foreign Policy, written by Rose McDermott, and published in 1998 by the University of Michigan Press.)
The article can be connected to three Social Studies topics: geography; politics; and history. Geographically, the Suez Canal and its surrounding environments are places, which have different meanings to different people. They are in Egypt. Depending on this meaning, some people are willing to do whatever is necessary to take something away from the current owner. Some of these politically-motivated actions carry a greater level of risk. Once the person or group has taken possession of the object of their desire, they have to keep it. Nothing lasts forever. Eventually, someone else will come along and become the new owner. This continuous cycle of events is added to the historical record. The idea of a shipping channel in the eastern Mediterranean area is hundreds (if not thousands) of years old. In modern times, construction began in 1859. The Suez Canal opened in 1869, the same year the east and west coasts of the United States were connected by the Central Pacific and Union Pacific Railroads.
By 1950, Egypt was approaching the limit of its tolerance of British occupation and control. Gamal Abdel Nasser became the country's President in 1952, shortly after the British were evicted. This did not resolve the disagreements that still existed between Egypt, France, and Britain. These two countries still felt that they should have a say in matters related to this international waterway. The role of the United States was still minimal. Harry Truman was President, and he was **not** willing to get involved in the affairs of countries along the Mediterranean Sea. This would change in January 1953, with the inauguration of Dwight Eisenhower. He and his advisors, particularly new Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, **were** interested in becoming meddlers. Nasser was not happy with this development. He did not want to be told how he should conduct Egypt's affairs.
As noted in The Lemon Tree, "Nasser's emergence would rattle officials from Washington to London to Paris to Tel Aviv [and] tensions between Egypt and Israel would increase in the coming years" (Tolan, 102). Nasser took his risk in July 1956. He closed the Suez Canal. His action was not popular with either Britain, France, or the United States. One of his objectives was to raise the fees paid by the Canal's users and use the money to help fund the construction of the Aswan Dam. The United States did eventually get involved by providing financial support to for the Aswan project, in exchange for the option of increasing military presence in the Middle East. Eisenhower knew that his decision had a potentially serious risk. This was during the early days of the Cold War. Any increase of military strength in this area by the United States would be interpreted by the Soviet Union as a threat to its national security.
(As important as the Canal was to the region, author Tolan only makes a few refernces to it in the main portion of the book. He devotes at least as much coverage in the Notes section.)
The Suez crisis lasted approximately four months. In early November, a truce was announced by the United Nations. One of the conditions of the truce was that the British would withdraw their remaining troops by the end of 1956. The other condition, that Israel withdraw its troops from the Gaza Strip, was not completed until the spring of 1957. We know this would not be a long-term arrangement.
John
Protect the Poor Walls!
In stumbling around the City of Minneapolis website, I found a section providing advice for protecting walls from vandalism and graffiti. I thought to myself, "Self, walls are super-important right? Right. Better study this section carefully! Yup."
It turns out that if you live in Minneapolis, and if you have a wall that is near and dear to your heart and you wish to protect and preserve it, there are some steps you can take to make this possible! (These things may even work outside of Minneapolis, but I can't promise anything.)
I just know you'll love this first one!
First One: Build a fence in front of the wall! Isn't that brilliant?
Second One: Who cares? Let's get back to the First One. I can't get over that. A fence to protect a wall!
As I think about it though, the Commies did put up barb-wire in front of their Berlin Wall modern art project/symbol of oppression. Wasn't this to give the riflemen in the guard towers more time to aim and fire upon anyone attempting to get over/under/through the wall? I can't remember, but hey, what a great way to protect their precious wall! I bet it cut down on all that pesky graffiti!
Do the Israelis have a fence to protect their wall too? They really should because how else will they keep people from scratching their names into it or from peeing on it or from leaning against it or whatever?
You know, I think I'll forward that wall safety information from the City of Minneapolis to the Israelis. It would be a shame if their nifty new wall didn't get a nifty new fence to protect its fragile little self.
http://www.ci.minneapolis.mn.us/graffiti/solutions.asp
Saturday, June 6, 2009
Can Obama really walk the walk as he talks the talk?
President Obama has said that he will change the ways the US and its allied Israel deal with the Palestinian question and US relation with the Arab world. The question is, is Obama able to change US policy around the world, especially in developing or the so-called third world countries? It is an open secret that the United States Government has supported some of the greatest despotic and tyrranical regimes in the world. Cases in point: Liberia (with Samuel Doe), Zaire (with Mobutu Sessesekou), Iraq (with Saddam Hussein), to name just a few.
The US massively supported the undemocratic rule of Siare Barre regime in Somalia, when he bacame very unpopular wit the Somali people the US left and Samalia became a failed state. The US has not taken genuine step on the Darfour question, because Darfour does not present any economic gains for the US.
In this era of globalization, many of the attrocities perpetrated against peoples of the "periphery" were perpetrated by peopel in "core".
For over 30 years the US has pay lip service to the Palestinian quest for a free and democratic homalend alongside Israel. Every body knows of how the US massively supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Even as we speak, the US is supporting the exploitation of Ogoni peoples in the Niger Delta in Nigeria. It turns a blind eye polical, social and environmental degredation of the Ogoni peoples homeland.
So, my question again; can Obama walk the walk as he talks the talk?
The US massively supported the undemocratic rule of Siare Barre regime in Somalia, when he bacame very unpopular wit the Somali people the US left and Samalia became a failed state. The US has not taken genuine step on the Darfour question, because Darfour does not present any economic gains for the US.
In this era of globalization, many of the attrocities perpetrated against peoples of the "periphery" were perpetrated by peopel in "core".
For over 30 years the US has pay lip service to the Palestinian quest for a free and democratic homalend alongside Israel. Every body knows of how the US massively supported Saddam Hussein against Iran. Even as we speak, the US is supporting the exploitation of Ogoni peoples in the Niger Delta in Nigeria. It turns a blind eye polical, social and environmental degredation of the Ogoni peoples homeland.
So, my question again; can Obama walk the walk as he talks the talk?
Obama Calls for a Freeze on West Bank Settlements
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/06/world/middleeast/06diplo.html?_r=1&ref=world
The only path to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will laid with hard choices and compromises for both sides. In Obama's recent speech in Cairo he called for a "freeze" of West Bank Settlements by Israel. I applaud the president for his political courage in defying the previous administration's almost unconditional support of Netanyahu. A risky move for him politically because it has already drawn criticism from the Zionist Organization of America and other right-wing groups. Perhaps the visit by the president to the site of the Nazi concentration camp in Germany was a political maneuver after giving his speech in Cairo.
The only way that this coflict will come to a peaceful end with be with hard choices and strong leadership. The speech that Obama gave was a good start. Although they were encouraging words, a step in the right direction, they still are only words. This administration has the political capital to create new policies with Israel, and must show the strong leadership and courage to change the way the United States deals with Israel. I believe that Israel must make the first compromises to begin the peace proccess. A freeze in the settlements would be a good start, a show of good faith.
A shift in Unites States/Isaraeli policy might be damaging for Obama politically, but the possibility of progress towards peace in the conflict would be well worth it. A new and tougher policy towards Israel would resonate positively throughout the Muslim world. After the last eight years, our image needs it.
The only path to peace in the Israeli/Palestinian conflict will laid with hard choices and compromises for both sides. In Obama's recent speech in Cairo he called for a "freeze" of West Bank Settlements by Israel. I applaud the president for his political courage in defying the previous administration's almost unconditional support of Netanyahu. A risky move for him politically because it has already drawn criticism from the Zionist Organization of America and other right-wing groups. Perhaps the visit by the president to the site of the Nazi concentration camp in Germany was a political maneuver after giving his speech in Cairo.
The only way that this coflict will come to a peaceful end with be with hard choices and strong leadership. The speech that Obama gave was a good start. Although they were encouraging words, a step in the right direction, they still are only words. This administration has the political capital to create new policies with Israel, and must show the strong leadership and courage to change the way the United States deals with Israel. I believe that Israel must make the first compromises to begin the peace proccess. A freeze in the settlements would be a good start, a show of good faith.
A shift in Unites States/Isaraeli policy might be damaging for Obama politically, but the possibility of progress towards peace in the conflict would be well worth it. A new and tougher policy towards Israel would resonate positively throughout the Muslim world. After the last eight years, our image needs it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)