Palestine's Resistance shows adaptability

     The everlasting war between Palestine and Israel reached a high point during the summer, then it simmered back down for several months. It's hit a small spike the last couple of weeks, with several deaths in Jerusalem and the West Bank, where violence has been considerably lower than in Gaza in the last decade.

     I've noticed a trend over this year in the way Palestinians are fighting their cruel occupiers. Whenever Israel finds a way to negate the way they fight, they simply adapt and maneuver. They find a new way to fight back, ways that are creative and totally unrelated to the way they previously thought, so the Israelis have a harder time predicating how to combat the resistance. They think outside the box. 

     The first way the Palestinians fought this year was with rockets. They did this because this was one of the few long range weapons they have. Unlike the Israelis, they do not have artillery and jet fighters to kill their enemies from miles away. They have whatever small arms they can smuggle into Gaza or whatever they can make at home. These rockets were not particularly effective, as they are impossible to aim at the distances the Palestinians had to fire them at, but, at least they were a weapon. 

    The Israelis found a way to counter these rockets and bring down causalities from them almost 99%. Basically they hardly killed anyone with rockets during the 2014 summer war. The Israeli Iron Dome shot down the rockets before they could hit their targets. 

     But the Palestinians adapted. They switched from shooting rockets to doing raids from tunnels. They would dig under Gaza, through the border, and up into Israel, where they would launch sneak attacks against Israeli military targets. Contrary to Israeli propaganda, Hamas did not use a single tunnel to launch attacks against Israeli civilians, they only targeted military units. This is contrasted with Israel, whose killings were 75%-90% civilians. Hamas killed 66 Israeli soldiers during the war, and a big chunk of those deaths were from tunnel raids. The other deaths came from classic guerrilla warfare operations in Gaza as Israeli ground troops rolled in.  

     These tunnels caught the Israelis by surprise. They didn't anticipate that Hamas had built as many tunnels as they did. They couldn't negate them with their superior airpower. Jet fighters can do nothing against tunnels that are as deep as the Hamas tunnels were. So, they had to send in ground troops and bulldozers into Gaza to destroy the tunnels. This is how Israel negated the tunnel method of fighting. Although this cost them some ground troops, Israel succeeded in destroying the Hamas tunnels.  

     By the fall of 2014, after the war had ended, the Palestinians had to come up with a new way to fight. They are not allowed to possess firearms in the West Bank, apparently, Palestinians are not humans, therefore, they are not supposed to enjoy the universal human right of self defense. Jews, however, are allowed to own any firearm that they want. So, Palestinians find an ingenious way to fight with what they've got: cars.
 http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/israel/11211675/Israel-on-brink-of-third-intifada-after-new-car-attack.html

      It's an interesting tactic, something that you could never predict judging by their past tactic, which was tunnels. The two bear no resemblance. And unlike guns, Israel cannot ban Palestinians from driving cars, otherwise, they'd be just like Saudi Arabia in that regard, who bans women from driving. It's politically and economically not viable, which makes it a good tactic.
     Same thing with this last tactic that Palestinians are using at the same time as the cars: knives. Yep, regular pocket and kitchen knives. Nothing super high tech here. But Israel can't do anything about it before an attack happens. You can't ban knives.
     It will be interesting to see if this resistance fizzes out and dies down like many other times, or if it will actually culminate into another Intifada. It's simply too early to tell. Anyone who tells you it's a third Intifada doesn't know what the hell they're talking about. But there is one guarantee: Palestinian resistance will never die. You cannot kill an idea, and you cannot take away peoples' basic human rights and them just sit there and not do anything about it.  
 

     

     

  

Obama needs a Foreign Policy 101

      Since my Associates and Bachelor degrees were in International Studies and Global Affairs, respectively, it's fair to say that I know a lot about the subject. No, I'm not an expert, but I have this thing that most politicians lack called "common sense." I look at Obama's foreign policy and weep. I mean this guy doesn't even try. It is a disaster for everyone in the world...except Obama and the 1%: the mainstream media, the military industrial complex, the rich Democrat CEOs, etc. So that's why he continues to do it, even though, by all standards, it sucks.  It sows destruction throughout the world while the rich overlords reap the benefits. It makes people around the world hate us, which, they have every reason to, given all of the death, oppression, torture, repression, and suffering we cause deliberately with our self-centered foreign policy.
      What would I do differently than Obama? Well, I'm glad you asked. Let me count the ways.
   
     1. Push for the legalization of marijuana. 
     Wait, but this a domestic issue, right? That's what you're thinking, right? Well, it is, but it has grave foreign policy implications for all of South America, especially Mexico. By keeping marijuana illegal in the states, we give the drug cartels in Mexico more money and power, because we create a vacuum of ways people can get marijuana legally. The cartel fills that vacuum. If marijuana was legal, American consumers wouldn't need to go to a drug dealer that gets his drugs from the cartels. They would go down the street to a legal American store, that employes legal workers and pays taxes, to buy some marijuana. That marijuana would be grown legally by U.S. farmers.
     The report and evidence is all right here for anyone to read http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/08/pot-legalization-opium-mexico_n_5112869.html. Legalization in just two states have taken a significant chunk out of the cartels' profit. They hate legalization. Imagine if we made it legal everywhere in the U.S.? Bam, the cartels couldn't stay in business. They'd fold, and thousands of Mexicans would live because the cartels wouldn't be around to kill them.
     This post will not go into the domestic issues surrounding marijuana legalization, as that is a post for another time. This is solely looking at the international implications of such a decision.
     Critics of my idea would say "Oh, well, the cartels will simply shift to another way to make money, such as selling and moving cocaine, heroin, etc." Fine, make all of that legal. Where in the Constitution does it say that Americans cannot use cocaine? You're violating peoples' right to use what they want to. You think using heroin is immoral? Perfectly fine, no one is forcing you to do it. But don't expect to shove your opinion down other peoples' throats, and make them believe that using it is immoral. You are entitled to your opinions and to act on them, as long as they don't violate other peoples' human rights. You are not entitled to make your opinion the law of the land just because you think it is a good idea. This isn't Saudi Arabia.
      So this leads to #2, which is:

     2. Stop financing and training the Mexican military, as well as every other South American military.
      When we train militaries to go and kidnap people, torture them, rape them, oppress them, deny them their basic human rights, and kill them, then we are just as responsible for those crimes as the ones that commit them. If we hadn't given them the training and weapons, then they would not be able to carry out those crimes. Yes, perhaps Mexico would go to Russia or China for training and/or funding, but at least the suffering and killing would not be on our hands, on our conscience. We could say we had nothing to do with it. We would not be responsible for the crimes.
     Look at all of the reports on the Mexican military, how much they oppress and make their own people suffer. You'll never hear about this in the mainstream media, for their overlords could never allow Mexico, our "ally," to look bad.
     http://www.hrw.org/americas/mexico
     http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2013/country-chapters/mexico
     http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/9/4/amnesty-internationaltortureinmexico.html
     Do you want your hard earned tax money to give these thugs weapons and training? Huh? What do you say, Obama supporters? Sure seems like you all just love killing and oppressing innocent people who are just minding their own fucking God damn business. Fucking fascists.
     Look at how much money we've given those fucking fascists down in Mexico City over the years:

 

     My opinion doesn't just apply to Mexico. We give weapons and training to many Latin American countries who abuse them the same way Mexico does. Honduras, Columbia, Guatemala, fuck them all, stop all military sales and training until they stop oppressing and killing their own people.You can find dozens of reports on any South American country that we give weapons and training to, just like the reports I linked above the picture. Just type "Honduran military human rights abuses" or "Columbia military human rights abuses" etc, and you will find all the information you need. 

     http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2014/07/15/mexico-drugs-us-military/12535271/

     Remember, if Obama did #1 of my suggestions, the cartels would cease to exist, or, at the very least, be a shell of their former selves in terms of power. With them weak and dying, we don't need to pump money and weapons to South American countries to fight the "War on Drugs" anymore.

     But, here's the thing that the Democrats never, EVER, want to talk about. Obama doesn't want the War on Drugs to end. In fact, no one in power in the United States government wants the War on Drugs to end. It's making them too much money. It's giving them too much power. Why would they want it to stop? 

 

     3. Get the fuck out of Somalia.

     We've been in this failed state for decades now. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. That's exactly what we've been doing in Somalia. We're just killing terrorists and protecting the crony government there. And look at where's that has gotten them. Oh yeah, we sure a big help!

      Every time we kill a "terrorist" (some insurgents may be ordinary people who are fed up with the corrupt government that oppresses them, in that case, we're fighting people who have a legitimate reason to fight the Somalian government), we just create 10 more people willing to fight the Somalian government and us. Friends and family of the deceased will be angry and take up arms. Kill 1, create 10, oh yeah, great plan. 

     There is no group we can morally back in the decades long civil war. The Somalian government is just as bad as the terrorist group it fights. Just look at any of these human rights reports done on it:

     http://www.hrw.org/africa/somalia 

     http://www.refworld.org/publisher,HRW,,SOM,,,0.html 

     http://www.progressio.org.uk/sites/progressio.org.uk/files/human-rights-in-somaliland.pdf 

     4. End all foreign aid to every single country. 

     We need that money here at home. Even if it is not a lot of money compared to our national budget, it is still money that is being used to slaughter innocents. We cannot have that on our conscience, as I talked about in #2. The U.S., by law, is not allowed to finance terrorist organizations. It's time we actually enforced that law. Plus, morally, we cannot give weapons to terrorists and fascists so they can go and kill innocent civilians. Is that where you want your tax dollars to go to?: Torturing a teenager into giving a false confession? The rape of a woman? The murder of a father? No, didn't think so. 

 

     Cut off every single one of these damn countries! They all oppress their own citizens or citizens of other nations. They kill civilians, they deny people their basic human rights. They have secret police that kidnap people in the dead of night. No fucking more!!! We could've used that $14.5 billion in 2013 for any of a hundred other better programs or causes.

     5. Send NATO into Ukraine to protect its sovereignty against Russia.
     I know, such a radical idea, right?? Since when is defending freedom and human rights against a foreign aggressor who wants to put in a puppet dictator that supports said foreign aggressor deemed "radical"? Ask yourself, how did we come to this point in our global society: Where doing such an action is considered "radical" or "extreme"? Isn't it sad that our liberal wussy society is so scared about getting into a fight with a country that could actually fight back that they label such a noble act "radical"?
     Listen, it's really quite simple. U.S. foreign policy should be based on the premise that we reward and support countries that act on our ideals and morals: democracy, human rights, etc. We should shun and oppose countries that act against our ideals and morals: dictatorships, terrorism, apartheid, wars of aggression, etc.
     We apply this logic to the Ukraine/Russia situation. The Ukrainians overthrew a leader that was oppressing them, corrupt, and a fascist. Our morals tell us that the Ukrainians had the right to do that, and that they followed in the example of our founding fathers by doing so. Russia was furious that their pro-Russian stooge was overthrown, so, rather than try and develop a close relationship with the new Ukrainian government, they would rather invade to try and put another pro-Russian stooge in power so that they can control him. Our morals tell us that Russia is in the wrong. We cannot have any interaction with a country who does that. We tried to solve this problem peacefully, but Russia has broken the cease-fire several times. They engage in "diplomacy" only to create another scenario where they can trick their opponents into getting more of what Russia wants. It has shown us that we cannot trust the Putin administration. This has nothing to do with race or religion, it has everything to do with the specific actions the Putin government has taken.
     But Ukraine isn't part of NATO, you say. Well, that is correct. They are not part of NATO. But they have applied to become part of NATO. So NATO should accept their membership and then defend them against aggressor like they do any other NATO member country.
     Critics will say that a NATO/Russia war will be devastating, and therefore, my idea is completely stupid. Well, it will be devastating, I am not denying that fact. But I will argue that it would be worth it. If this is what it takes to finally teach Russia a lesson that they can't just make up shit and invade countries based on blatant LIES, then so be it. It'll be on Russia's head, not NATO's, all of the death and destruction that would happen. Russia escalated this conflict, not Ukraine or NATO. Ukraine would've never overthrown "President" Yanukovych if he hadn't oppressed them, kidnapped them, tortured them, and killed them for simply asking for basic human rights.

    6. DO NOT BOMB ISIS!!!
    This war will be horrible for everyone except Obama, the military-industrial complex, and the oil industry robber barons, which is exactly why he declared war on ISIS, (well, not formally, like, asking Congress's permission to do so. Apparently that is SO 1940's, and "not needed" in the 21st century). I will explain how it will benefit or hurt every single group involved in this conflict.

• The Iraqi people: Obama said he entered this war for "the Iraqi people." Note: aggressors and imperialists always say they are fighting "for the good of the people" to make their bloodthirsty campaign sound legitimate. But the U.S. will only make the Iraqi people suffer more. How? 1. U.S. warplanes always miss their targets a number of times during a bombing campaign. It happens to everyone, not just the U.S. But eventually, the U.S. will hit civilians, either on accident or on purpose. They will cause civilians to die because it is impossible to hit your targets 100% in a chaotic battlefield. 2. By weakening ISIS, Obama will ensure the survival of the Iraqi government, which, remember, oppresses and kills its own civilians ALL THE FUCKING GOD DAMN TIME. See my past post on how horrible the Iraqi government is, and, based on our morals, we cannot support them any longer: http://noholdsonfreedom.blogspot.com/2014/06/what-should-us-do-about-isiss-advance.html. 3. Each ISIS death at the hands of the U.S. will enrage their family and friends, causing even more recruits for ISIS. They will want to fight even harder and slay even more innocent Iraqis to satisfy their bloodlust which was fueled by their friend or family member's death at the hands of U.S. bombs. 
• The U.S.: The world will see the U.S. bombing yet again more Muslims in an attempt to protect an oppressive, corrupt puppet government. This will enrage Muslims and non-Muslims alike. They will flock once again back to Iraq and Syria to fight "the good fight." As if we didn't need the Muslim world more pissed off at us. Just like the 2003 Iraq war drew in thousands of fighters from around the world to fight the imperialistic U.S. occupation, so will this conflict. We have 1,200 U.S. soldiers in Iraq right now, and more come every month or so. How long before ISIS attacks them? ISIS has anti-air weapons in its arsenal. How long before they shoot down one of our aircraft? Nothing gives a morale booster like shooting down a multi-million dollar aircraft, which seems invincible by the sight of men armed with assault rifles, with a missile that cost a couple of thousand dollars. The world will continue to isolate us as a result of our imperialistic, blood spilling actions. We haven't defeated the Taliban in 13 years. What makes you think we can defeat ISIS, who is a lot stronger than the Taliban, any faster? This will just accelerate attacks on Western civilians worldwide as well as U.S. soldiers. 
• The Syrian people. Yes, ISIS commits barbaric acts of terrorism and oppression against the Syrian people. No one in denying that. But by weakening ISIS, you are strengthening another entity it is fighting: the Assad government. And the Assad government is just as bad as ISIS, despite what the mainstream media says. In fact, the Assad government has caused infinite more times death and destruction because it has been around for decades. ISIS has only been around 2 or 3 years. Assad kidnaps people, ISIS kidnaps people. Assad tortures people, ISIS tortures people. Assad beheads people, ISIS beheads people. Assad kills people simply for their religion, ISIS kills people simply for their religion. They are one in the same, and our morals tell us that we cannot support either entity. 
• The military-industrial complex: Oh they're loving this. Killing and maiming is their business, and with this newest war, business is good! (Yes I quoted Dave Mustaine, deal with it bitches). This war means more ludicrous contracts for companies producing weapons, vehicles, and hardware for the U.S. military. This means more opportunities to test their weapons. This means the politicians will push for more defense spending, because anyone who is against more defense spending is obviously a liberal terrorist (heavy sarcasm). 
• The oil industry: Pushing ISIS off the oil fields of Iraq and letting the puppet Iraq government take back control of them is perfect for the oil industry. Now they can continue to steal Iraq's natural resources and sell them for ridiculous prices so they can lavish in their unbridled wealth!

     To end, this article sums up why Obama's ISIS speech was an utter and complete load of fucking horseshit:  http://america.aljazeera.com/opinions/2014/9/barack-obama-islamicstatestrategyspeech.html?utm_content=opinion&utm_campaign=ajam&utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=SocialFlow 

     7. Get the fuck out of Afghanistan. 

     We have been in Afghanistan for 13 YEARS. That's since I was in 6th grade for crying out loud. More than half of my life we have been in this stupid, ridiculous, unnecessary war. Al-Qaeda wanted us to get stuck in Afghanistan for years, and guess what, our stupid incompetent leaders fell for it. They did 9/11 so we'd get stuck fighting the Taliban in Afghanistan, (btw, the Taliban and Al-Qaeda are two completely different organizations. Contrary to the mainstream media, the Taliban had NOTHING to do with 9/11). In the meantime, Al-Qaeda spread to Pakistan, Yemen, Somalia, etc. The Afghanistan War was one of the best things to happen to Al-Qaeda.

     We're wasting billions and billions of dollars every year by staying in Afghanistan, while all of our efforts are making Americans less safe, not more safe. The war has tarnished our international image, making us the laughing stock of the world because our military cannot defeat men hiding in caves with AK-47s and goats. The war has been a gathering point for jihadists all over the world to hone in their skills so they can create more mayhem and death in other parts of the world. The military-industrial complex is loving the war though. 13 years of solid business with the military and related government agencies. 13 years to test out all their various weapons. 13 years of happy senators passing big "defense" bills. 

     If we really wanted to defeat Al-Qaeda, we would have to do it a completely different way that neither Obama nor Bush has done. But instead, we sought out to put in a puppet government in Afghanistan, that is corrupt and oppressive, so we can control it, and, in the process, control it's vast mineral wealth for ourselves, as well as control a strategic point in Asia.

     So there you have it, Obama's foreign policy 101 that he will never do because that would actually help spread freedom and stop suffering throughout the world. No, he'd rather kill people and plunder countries so he can line his already fat pockets with even more money. No one is going to stop him. The Democrats cheer him on as he continues to slaughter thousands, and the Republicans would do the same thing if they were in charge, (they proved that with Reagen and Bush). America feeds off chaos and death around the world. Because, who would sell weapons to terrorists, put in puppet governments, and steal resources if we didn't do it?!       

         

    

   

     
      

The Disconnect between Stated Goals and Actions Done

(The following is a paper I wrote for grad school, and I thought was an appropriate entry for this blog. Yeah, it's gonna be a lot different than my usual posts, I get it :D Of course, the pictures are added for this entry only, I didn't put them in the paper.)
 
           A never ending and ever changing part of U.S. foreign policy is which countries the U.S. give military/economic/political aid to. These gifts and transactions of goods and services are done either based on a set of principles and norms that supposedly the U.S. and the foreign country share, or, they are done to further the United States’ interests abroad. Some of these principles and norms include democracy, defense of human rights, wanting their citizens to be prosperous, and respect for international law. What is disturbing is, in many cases, the U.S. gives this aid to a foreign country that is openly hostile to these principles and norms. Policy makers in the U.S. government say that’s not the case, yet by all standards, a rational analysis of the country, records of breaking international law in relation to these principles, and reports done by human rights organizations, the foreign country does not share the principles and values that the U.S. claims to hold. Other times, the United States’ stated interest runs contrary to the values it says that it proclaims. That leads to an observation that the stated interest really is not going to establish or strengthen democracy in the foreign country. This review will demonstrate the positive results of giving military/economic/political aid to a country that does want to uphold democratic values, without bending the rules due to race, religion, or radical self-interest groups. 

             

          The first article is titled “Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study” by Richard Harris. It talks about how to establish a democracy that is free to all in a country that was previously authoritarian. This is relevant because most of the United States’ military aid goes to countries that were/are authoritarian and that the United States’ supposedly wants them to become more democratic. The author says in simple terms that the way to establish democracy in a country is to establish democratic norms; to show the people in that country that these norms are the best way to do certain processes. Do not force them to do these norms, because that will just push them away from doing them, even from something that may benefit them. Show them, by example and logical/rational reasoning that these norms are what it takes to protect human rights, reduce corruption, etc.

            An important term that the author introduces in this article is “low-intensity democracy,” a term that describes a government that uses formal democratic institutions as a cover for continued authoritarian rule and/or foreign domination. This relates to a point made earlier that U.S. officials claim the countries they are giving military aid to are democratic, or at least trying to be democratic. The fact is, most of them aren’t. They’re simply low-intensity democracies. U.S. officials point to the formal democratic institutions as the basis of their claim that these countries are democratic, but upon further inspection, it is evident that these governments are corrupt, authoritarian, and extremely violent towards civilians for political gain, (terrorism).

            The second journal reviewed is titled “Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation” by Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff. The journal talks about the effect democracy has on corruption. The study focused on four countries: India, Nigeria, Sweden, and Japan. It included various aspects of the countries and their governments such as GDP per capita, amount of government intervention in the marketplace, and amount of trade the country does with other countries. An important point from the journal is that the larger a government gets, the more opportunities for corruption there are. This supports the claim that less government is better for the people. Therefore, according to the article, if the American government wants to decrease corruption around the world, its policies must focus on reducing the size of government. American military support, economic support, and political support should revolve around this principle.

            Another important point is that the greater amount of government intervention in the marketplace also increases the opportunities for corruption. This point supports the same claim as stated in the paragraph above. Also, democracy helps countries win wars. The reasons for this is because the political culture of a democracy is better suited for warfare, the public’s consent is more powerful in a democracy vs an autocratic state, and the leader is accountable to the voters. The logical conclusion from this point would be that if the United States truly wants to help protect other populations’ human rights, it’s policies must support democracy around the globe because when a country can win a war, it can defend itself from aggressive wars and potential foreign occupation. Both of these types of conflicts trample on a multitude of human rights.

            The most important point this journal had was that corruption in a country’s government prevents other countries from coming to help that particular country. Any economic aid that comes to a corrupt government just gets taken by the corrupt officials, and hardly any, if any, actual aid comes to the poor population of that country. Military aid would just give more might to the army to oppress and kill their citizens for trying to exercise their basic human rights. So if the United States wants to help a country that is corrupt, it cannot give aid to the government to do so. It must identify opposition parties that are not corrupt, or other NGOs/human rights organizations/moderate secular rebels, (whatever the case may be in that particular country), and pinpoint which ones are in line with true American values, the ones this country was based on. That way, the American people would know that their hard-earned taxpayer money would be going towards an organization that was not in conflict with American values. 

             The links and commonality of these two articles is that they are two steps to understanding democracy. The first article talks about how to establish it, and the second article talks about what its effects will be once it is established. Stating how they are common also illustrates how they are different: they represent two different time periods on the road to democracy i.e. one has to happen before the other.

            The third article continues on this linear concept of democracy establishment/implementation, even though it is entirely possible to go backwards in this process. The article is titled “Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria” by Robert Dibie. Its title is a clear statement on what it is about. Countries have to develop their own way of education that fits their specific needs. Simply borrowing a system from a rich Western country will not work. The author says “It became apparent in the nation that it is wrong to undermine all that is indigenous in favor of all that is western.’  

            The article answers the question “Why does Nigeria have a lack of qualified teachers and inadequate resources to have a decent public administration program to better itself?” The three answers are because of low salaries, inadequate infrastructure, and lack of security. If the U.S. goal is to help Nigeria have a decent public administration program, its policies have to solve these three problems. If it’s policies help contribute to these problems, then it cannot claim that it wants Nigeria to have the program.

            What this third article has in common with the previous two articles is that is illustrates how U.S. policy can (has) deviated from its stated goal, and has created situations that it publically says that it is against. It points to a necessary revaluation of U.S. foreign policy related specifically to the main topic of this review: U.S. military/economic/political aid and support, because by the results of the studies done in these three articles, the U.S. policies are not achieving their stated goals. It provides a starting point from which U.S. policy makers can create new policies. The articles do not say specifically what these U.S. policies are, but that is outside the scope of this review. However, a short amount of time invested in research, having the background that these articles provide, would result in finding these U.S. policies without a problem. 

            The fourth article is titled “Governance in a Globalizing World” by Jamil Jreisat. It talks about the very same issues as the third article: Governance and how globalization affects it. It specifically focuses on what are the consequences of a global power “going rouge,” so to speak. Such actions that would fall under this category would be changing the international commerce rules to benefit itself at the expense of weaker, poorer countries, making up false pretexts as an excuse for a war of aggression, and trampling on peoples’ (whether its own citizens or others), basic human rights. The article states that a constitution is the basis for democracy and protecting citizens’ human rights. No democracy does not have a constitution, whether written or un-written, although it points out that there are some authoritarian governments that do have a constitution. In other words, a democracy has to have a constitution, but just because it has one doesn’t mean it is a democracy.   

            Globalization brings many benefits to a country, including more trading opportunities, closer economic ties that can foster closer political ties, and the sharing of best practices, lessons learned, etc, in all areas of public administration. However, globalization can be severely reversed if a strong, world power country goes rogue, doing some of the actions listed in the previous paragraph. Globalization cannot happen if a powerful country has an “empire-building approach with imperial authority to put down challenges rather than to persuade and to negotiate agreements.” This means that if a world power such as the United States wants to foster more globalization between itself and other countries, it must refrain from committing actions that would severely reverse globalization. If the U.S. continuingly commits actions, on purpose, that guarantee the reversal of globalization, then one must question if the U.S. truly wants to foster more globalization or not.

            Both the third and fourth articles talk about the latest step in the establishment of democracy, but the fourth article talks about the concept in wide, non-tangible descriptions that are not specific to one country or region, while the third article focuses just on South Africa as its example. Together, they provide a solid basis for understanding how globalization affects democracy. One without the other would not be as effective in explaining this concept. If just the third article was presented, a reader might be left wondering how the lessons learned in South Africa could apply to any other country experiencing the same problem. If only the fourth article was presented, the reader could possibly be confused as to how these abstract, non-tangible practices would actually look on the ground in a country.

            The fifth and final article is titled “Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance

in the Eastern European Transformation” by James McCollum and Niles Schoening. The basic premise of this journal is that the more education a country has, the more democratic it becomes. There are very few highly educated socialists and fascists. Communism, in of itself, has inherent deficiencies. The authors suggest that the U.S. should only offer educational assistance to organizations/countries that believe in democracy. Communists, or other people that believe in tyranny, would only use that education to further control and subjugate people. Therefore, offering educational assistance to them would not further the U.S. goal of spreading democracy. The last point the journal makes is that any educational program that the U.S. sends to a foreign country has to be sensitive to the local culture; it is not a one size fits all. This is the same point that the 3^rd article, the one about globalization in Nigeria, mentioned, when it said that simply using a Western educational model in a non-Western country will not work.   

            The significance of this last article in relation to the other articles goes back to the concept of democratization as a process that was talked about when linking the other articles together. To recap, the first article talks about how to establish democracy. The second article talks about the situation right after establishment: what effects democracy will have and how it will reduce corruption. The third one talks about what effects globalization will have on this young democracy, (which globalization is inevitable at this point in history, unless one is a state like North Korea). The fourth article talks about how to govern with globalization happening all around one’s country. This is very similar to the third article’s main point. And finally, the fifth article talks about the role of education, that could happen before, after, or in-between any of these points. That observation points to the value of education: it can light the spark to create democracy, it can help a fledgling democracy once it is established, and it can help a democracy combat the ill side effects of globalization at any point of the country’s level of globalization.

            In conclusion, these journals do not directly spout policy recommendations to the United States government in relation to its efforts to spread democracy throughout the world, as that is not the journals’ goal. Their goal is simply to state the facts in way that would help ignite U.S. policymakers to think in a rational, logical, and non-biased manner: “If I want to achieve goals XYZ, how would I do that?” Such policies that would come out of such a brainstorm or discussion would be: Not to give military aid/training to fascist regimes or governments that support terrorism, identifying and helping organizations that are democratic within a despotic or tyrannical country, and not breaking these policies due to the lobbying of radical self-interest groups or racial or religious bias. The government must have principles and stick to them no matter what in order to make sure their democratization efforts are effective overseas. These journals, when read together, also show what are the consequences when there is a disconnect between a country’s stated goals and actions committed in order to achieve that goal. It is outside of the scope of this journal review to directly command “The United States must do XYZ.” Instead, it focuses on a specific aspect of the U.S. foreign policy. It provides the basis for the conversation of “If the United States says that it wants to achieve XYZ, yet commits actions that will certainly not achieve XYZ, these are the consequences that will follow.” 

Works Cited

            Alok K. Bohara, Neil J. Mitchell, and Carl F. Mittendorff, (2004). Compound Democracy and the Control of Corruption: A Cross-Country Investigation. The Policy Studies Journal, Vol. 32, No. 4, 2004.

            Robert Dibie Ph.D. (2004) Implications of Globalization in the Teaching of Public Administration in Africa: The Case of Nigeria, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:3-4, 151-169.

            Richard L. Harris (2004) Democratization of the State: A Global Perspective and South African Case Study, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1061-1100.

            Jamil Jreisat (2004) Governance in a Globalizing World, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:13-14, 1003-1029.

            James K. McCollum & Niles C. Schoening (2004) Introduction: Benefit of U.S. Educational Assistance in the Eastern European Transformation, International Journal of Public Administration, 27:11-12, 821-827.

It Is Not Extreme to Rebel Against a Tyrannical Government

Yemeni tribesmen killed 5 soldiers guarding a gas plant in south-western Yemen.

http://edition.cnn.com/2013/08/11/world/meast/yemen-violence/index.html

Now why would these tribesmen kill those soldiers? I mean, the only people who kill are psycho extremists, right? I mean, that's what the main stream media says, so it MUST be true.

To find out the answer to this question, we must look at Yemen's government.

http://www.freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/2012/yemen

To summarize it in a sentence, Yemen's government is a corrupt, violent oligarchy that doesn't give a fuck about its people.
It's rating, from a 1-7, 1 being completely free and 7 being fascist asshole land, is a 6. Even before the Arab Spring hit it in the spring of 2011, the government did the standard horrible things to its people: secret police kidnappings, torturing, killings, rapes, corrupt officials, no free elections for government officials, no basic human rights like freedom of expression or freedom to gather.
After the Arab Spring hit, the government went into violent panic mode, like many Arab governments did when they were hit with waves of protests. They slaughtered unarmed protesters by the hundreds. Then, some Yemenis thought, logically, "Hey, I, like every other person in the world, have the right to defend myself, even against a government." So, they put down their cute protest signs and picked up some rifles, and started defending themselves from government attacks. A government should not get special treatment when it comes to judging it in killing people.

Yemeni protesters running after the police attacked them.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of the average Yemeni, to help better understand why it is rational, logical, and within human nature to rebel against a violent oligarchical government. Let's say you are a husband and a father of two, living in an apartment in downtown Sanaa, the capital. Let's say you absolutely had nothing to do with opposition politics whatsoever. You literally did not care what the government did as long as they physically didn't hurt you.

But then the protests of 2011 started. Now the government is striking your neighborhood with artillery and tank shells. Government troops are moving in. You're put in a horrible situation. You either fight to protect your family, or do nothing, and you all die. That's how a government crackdown whips up people to fight against them that normally wouldn't do anything.

Let's take another situation. Let's say you are into opposition politics. You petition the government to allow for political gatherings, and instead of granting it, they kidnap you and bunch of other people in the dead of night. They break down the front door, and throw flash bangs and smoke grenades as they enter. They shoot your son, because, well, they can and get away with it, beat the crap out of your wife, and then kidnap you, putting a black bag over your head and cart you to God knows where, where they proceed to torture you for days and weeks, all for what? For simply peacefully petitioning the government to allow for a basic human right. Well, you're not peaceful anymore. You're out for bloody justice, and if peaceful means won't do anything, the minute you get your hands on a gun you're gonna kill some of dem gommverment troops, (Blood Diamond reference. If you haven't seen it you should. Damn good movie). 

The point of these examples is to show that under certain government conditions, it is rational and logical to fight against said government. It is not extreme, bloodthirsty, or a terrorist act to do so. History has shown that the human psychology does not like being conformed or restricted to a large degree. It is natural for a human to want to be free to make his/her own decisions.When it is chained by fascist rules or a corrupt government, psychologically the human gets mad, and wants to do something about it. First he would try peaceful means, because if you can solve a problem without bloodshed, that is better. But if peaceful means don't work, then you're left with no choice but to use violence.

A Yemeni man injured by government artillery shelling

This is what happens with a good chunk of the human population, however this is not the case 100% of the time. For example, there are some people who are pacifists, who under any circumstances, will not fight back. Even if they are being physically attacked, they will just sit there and get the shit beat outta them. However these are the exceptions to the rule, rather than the norm. You have to consciously be a pacifist because it is human instinct, (primal instinct that we obtained when our ancestors were cavemen and relied a lot on the fight or flight response to survive), to fight to defend yourself.

Revolution against tyrannical governments is rooted in our nation's culture because that is how our nation was born: out of the ashes of the American Revolution against the British. Therefore, as Americans, we must support any people's rightful revolution against any power that is oppressing them. Just take a look at all of the revolutions that have happened throughout history. It shows that humans do not like dictatorships and oligarchies; they want to be in control of their own destinies:   

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_revolutions_and_rebellions

What has the American government done in relation to this revolution? Well, as usual, it has not acted in accordance with our American values and morals, only more reason to kick this violent tyranny support government out of power, (but that's for another time). The American government has supported and even fought in support of the Yemeni government. That makes us, as is in many cases, guilty of all the crimes that Yemen does that we support: http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2013/01/03/yemen-reported-us-covert-actions-2013/
https://www.amnesty.org.uk/news_details.asp?NewsID=20894
http://killerapps.foreignpolicy.com/posts/2013/08/09/the_us_is_buying_even_more_hardware_for_yemens_military

So what can we do, as Americans, to help the Yemenis achieve the same freedom and dignity that we enjoy everyday?
1. Call for the U.S. government to cut off all aid to the Yemeni government. We absolutely cannot be giving aid to terrorists. The Yemeni government is a terrorist organization that kills unarmed civilians on purpose to scare them into submission. Is that where you want your hard earned tax dollars to go to?!
2. Support moderate rebels while denouncing extremist ones. There are a myriad of organizations fighting against the Yemeni government. Many include extremists and Al-Qaeda that are against both our American values and Islamic values. They kill civilians and shove their interpretation of Islam down peoples' throats. The Yemeni and American propaganda machine want you to believe that those are the ONLY organizations against the Yemeni government, to support their narrative that the Yemeni government is a good government that is just trying to survive terrorist attacks. These are the people that we must identify and denounce. Call them out on their bullshit ideology, make 'em look like idiots in the public and international arena, and make sure they don't get any American money or weapons.
But there are many moderate organizations, soldiers, and people who are fighting for the same aspirations that our ancestors fought for in the American Revolution. They want democracy and equal rights for all. They only fight against Yemeni soldiers; they do not attack civilians. These are the people we must identify and support, make sure their voices are heard, and make sure that the Yemeni American propaganda machine does not drown out their legitimate aspirations and goals.   

Anti-government demonstrators carry a Yemeni army officer as he joins demonstrations demanding the departure of President Ali Abdullah Saleh during a demonstration in Sana'a

Jordanian Dictator Doesn’t Get the Memo: Jordanians Want Democracy, not Appeasement

          First of all, before we go into the story at all, let’s get one thing straight. “King” Abdullah of Jordan is a dictator. The Western media calls him a king, to somehow make him look better than and not as cruel as the word “dictator” sounds. They do this because Abdullah is an ally of the U.S., (a.k.a does whatever the U.S. tells him to do in exchange for political, economic and military support), and as per U.S. policy, our allies never do anything wrong, ever.

          Let’s not kid ourselves here. Abdullah has absolute power over Jordan. He can dissolve anyone in the government at any time for any reason. He is not elected; he inherited his title. He is not held accountable for anything he does; neither the parliament nor the constitution can check or balance his powers at all. He received $1.02 billion dollars from the U.S. in military aid in 2009, $843 million in 2010, and an estimated $682 million in 2011, (calculations are not completely done yet for 2011). 

         

          Guess what he does with all that military aid we give him every year? If you follow my blog at all, you will know the answer to this question, and you will know that this answer fucking infuriates me more than anything else related to U.S. policy. He uses that money to pay and arm his police thugs, who violently beat up peaceful protesters, kidnap political opposition members, (often torturing them), rape women, and assassinate anyone who he deems is a “security threat,” (a.k.a. anyone who disagrees with him). 

          He uses that money to buy weapons and military vehicles from many developed countries, to completely dissuade anyone from taking up arms against the dictatorship. The military oppresses the Jordanian people, taking away their most basic human rights, leaving them at the mercy of the government. They can’t vote for their leader; Abdullah has that title for life, and then when he dies, the title just goes to his heir. They have no say in how they are governed. Sure, they “vote” for the parliament, but the parliament is completely subservient to Abdullah. They have no power, save what he feels like giving to them at a moment where it is convenient for him.

          Now that we have that established, let’s go to the main part of this post. There have been recent protests in Amman demanding political reform and that the dictator has less power.

http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/05/world/jordan-protest/index.html

 

           Abdullah is trying to appease them, dissolving parliament and calling for new elections. But the protesters are not satisfied with that, because that does absolutely nothing. Abdullah doesn’t want to face the fact that Jordanians want him OUT, and to bring in fair and free elections to elect their own leaders. Some of them want a liberal democracy based on Western governments, others want a constitutional monarchy, and still some others want a Sharia-based government. Whatever type of government they choose in free and fair elections will be a democracy because that is the type of government the people rightly and legitimately chose. It doesn’t have to be a liberal, Western-styled democracy to be a democracy.  

          The Western media has been largely mute on the Jordanian protests since the start of the Arab Spring. That is because reporting on the protests would make our U.S. ally look bad, so they ignore it, as the Western media is not allowed to make our “allies” look bad. They also point to the fact that there have not been as many protests in Jordan as say, Egypt or Yemen. Their conclusion is that most Jordanians are content with the government since they are not coming out in large numbers.

          But that’s not the case. The reason why there have not been as many protests is because the Jordanian security forces have a stranglehold on anyone who opposes them. They kidnap and torture protest organizers before they even get onto the streets. They snuff out any opposition before it can get anything going. They buy off people who would oppose them. They brutally crack down on the small amount of protests that have popped up, to scare other people to not oppose the government. The government has been quite effective in keeping a tight lid on dissatisfaction, because they know that if they let things grow too much, they’re going to end up like Tunisia or Egypt, or maybe even Libya or Syria, if the opposition decides to take up arms against them.

          Other bigoted, xenophobic Americans are saying that these protests are only a radical Islamic ploy to overthrow the Jordanian government and start an extremist jihadi government in its place. That statement is delegitimizing the rightful and logical complaints that the Jordanian people have with their government. It’s saying that if you are a Jordanian and you oppose the government, you are not standing for freedom or democracy. You are not demanding your basic human rights. Your claims are not legitimate. Instead, you are a radical Islamic terrorist who just wants to kill Americans.

          These Americans do not believe that Muslims are human enough to deserve human rights; therefore, they do not deserve to choose their own leader and government, so they’re perfectly fine with giving millions of dollars to Abdullah so he can rule Jordan with an iron fist. Then they act all surprised when Jordanians show hostility to them: “What? Why do you hate us so much? All we did was finance a dictator that has been oppressing and torturing you guys for decades, so what? No big deal, stop protesting for democracy and freedom, and start doing everything we say!”

          We, as principled Americans, should not just stand by and let this happen. We must support our Jordanian brothers and sisters who just want the same basic human rights that we enjoy every day. We must help make their voices heard, as they have many powerful governments and medias working against them. We must counter the bigoted statements that our fellow countrymen say about them. We must demand an end to U.S. military aid to Jordan, because that “aid” is being used in actions that are in direct violations of our principles, morals and beliefs.

          The Jordanian government is not our “ally.” They do not care about us. All they care about is getting as much as our money as they can so they can further cement their despotic rule over their own people. They are opposed to democracy and freedom, which makes them our enemies. We have no right to tell the Jordanian people what they can or cannot do. All we can do is support them in their endeavors that agree with our principles, morals and beliefs. And what they’re working towards is the exact same thing that our founding fathers worked towards: democracy, freedom, liberty and justice for all.