I find the lack of forethought on the part of some very senior politicians extremely alarming.
Now that we (NATO) have intervened Gaddafi simply must be removed. His forces dwarf those of the rebels and any continued conflict will inevitably lead to his victory and the massacre of anyone who didn't actively support him. As has been proved amply in the past air power alone cannot win wars and will simply prolong the conflict slightly by removing the more powerful elements of Gaddafi's army. He still has overwhelming manpower however and once distributed among civilians this cannot be bombed.
If the current NATO policy is continued the best possible case is a permanent stand-off, effectively splitting Libya into two halves and requiring the constant presence of NATO forces along the border. What place would West Libya hold in the world afterwards? No western state and none of the arab league states would be able to have any dealings with it and they would probably be under permanent total embargo (at vast expense to everyone). Anything less than best-possible would mean Gaddafi's eventual retaking of Benghazi.
If NATO is banking on Gaddafi being usurped by his own followers they are very naive. The most likely time for this to happen was in the first few days of the revolution. The more time passes and the more Tripoli is bombed the more his support will solidify.
Any scenario that ends with Gaddafi alive (other than exile in North Korea) is going to fail the Libyan people. The more the conflict is dragged out the more people will die and the more likely Gaddafi is to remain in power. The life of one extremely dangerous madman is surely worth that of thousands of ordinary Libyans? One single missile could obviate the need for thousands of sorties and save thousands of lives (not to mention billions of dollars).
Monday, 21 March 2011
Tuesday, 15 March 2011
Bah-rain
Bahrain calls in Saudi troops
Pretty stupid thing to do in my opinion. That's effectively admitting that they're not going to reconcile their issues in a manner they find acceptable so the rulers are simply going to try to enforce their will Gaddafi-style. Except that they don't have enough muscle to do that themselves so must call in foreign heavies from similar minded neighbours.
It will of course harden attitudes on the other side and inevitably lead to proper trouble. The sight of Saudi troops shooting Bahrainians might be a little too much for the Arab League and world at large to bear. Apparently Iran is threatening to get involved too. That could make things interesting for the west as they basically totally agree with Iran in this case.
"The west" in this case doesn't include the US though. Their flanneling and a general prevarication concerning the Arab revolts, not to mention their poorly timed vetoing of a UN resolution critical of Israeli settlements, amply demonstrates that they have after all (as many suspected) simply being paying lip service to their ideals of spreading freedom and democracy for all these years (the cynical might say that it is only their own freedom they are really interested in protecting) and that a stable energy supply is all they are really interested in. (Simply disagreeing with Iran would also seem to be a key US policy these days.)
The veto also demonstrates that, despite all his "new way" propaganda, Mr Obama is still beholden to the same right wing fundamentalist domestic interests that his Republican predecessors embraced. I don't pretend to fully understand US domestic politics but Obama strikes me as a man who cares what people think about him (he wouldn't be a politician if he didn't) so must have had some pretty strong reasons to make himself and America look so absurd in such a public manner.
Actually I really fail to understand their continued backing of the Israeli government. Like a psychotic little brother Netanyahu is exploring new paradigms in outrageous behaviour, safe in the knowledge that he is immune to serious reprisals whilst older brother is watching out for him. Older brother also knows that he can do no more than have the occasional private word as a public admonishing would seriously undermine little brother, perhaps fatally. Realpolitik would suggest that the US is better off abandoning their Israeli position in favour of weaseling into the good books of the many Islamic oil-producing states. The fact that they continue to hang on to their dogma makes me surmise that there are overpowering domestic reasons for it, though from afar I fail to see what they are.
Pretty stupid thing to do in my opinion. That's effectively admitting that they're not going to reconcile their issues in a manner they find acceptable so the rulers are simply going to try to enforce their will Gaddafi-style. Except that they don't have enough muscle to do that themselves so must call in foreign heavies from similar minded neighbours.
It will of course harden attitudes on the other side and inevitably lead to proper trouble. The sight of Saudi troops shooting Bahrainians might be a little too much for the Arab League and world at large to bear. Apparently Iran is threatening to get involved too. That could make things interesting for the west as they basically totally agree with Iran in this case.
"The west" in this case doesn't include the US though. Their flanneling and a general prevarication concerning the Arab revolts, not to mention their poorly timed vetoing of a UN resolution critical of Israeli settlements, amply demonstrates that they have after all (as many suspected) simply being paying lip service to their ideals of spreading freedom and democracy for all these years (the cynical might say that it is only their own freedom they are really interested in protecting) and that a stable energy supply is all they are really interested in. (Simply disagreeing with Iran would also seem to be a key US policy these days.)
The veto also demonstrates that, despite all his "new way" propaganda, Mr Obama is still beholden to the same right wing fundamentalist domestic interests that his Republican predecessors embraced. I don't pretend to fully understand US domestic politics but Obama strikes me as a man who cares what people think about him (he wouldn't be a politician if he didn't) so must have had some pretty strong reasons to make himself and America look so absurd in such a public manner.
Actually I really fail to understand their continued backing of the Israeli government. Like a psychotic little brother Netanyahu is exploring new paradigms in outrageous behaviour, safe in the knowledge that he is immune to serious reprisals whilst older brother is watching out for him. Older brother also knows that he can do no more than have the occasional private word as a public admonishing would seriously undermine little brother, perhaps fatally. Realpolitik would suggest that the US is better off abandoning their Israeli position in favour of weaseling into the good books of the many Islamic oil-producing states. The fact that they continue to hang on to their dogma makes me surmise that there are overpowering domestic reasons for it, though from afar I fail to see what they are.
It's pronounced "nucular"
Can't see the nuclear power industry surviving Japan's disaster.
Except in the UK of course, where the deals have already been signed and the backhanders backhanded.
Except in the UK of course, where the deals have already been signed and the backhanders backhanded.
Tuesday, 1 March 2011
Insurance - the Downfall of the West
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-12606610
The startling thing about this article is not that men are charged more for insurance (duh) but that an 18 year old would need to pay £3400 a year to insure a 2003 Corsa. That is insane. My first year's insurance (on a Mk3 Escort in 1994) cost me £600. And I thought that was steep. There is no way I could have afforded to learn to drive if it cost me that much to insure the car.
Perhaps we're about to see a generation of non-drivers, or at least one where only the Haves drive. That should sit nicely with the generation that can no longer afford a home and the one that can't afford to get educated.
Motor insurance, by the way, is pure crookery. It's a compulsory part of owning a car (ie living outside London) yet is not regulated in any way. New Zealand has a compulsory 3rd party personal insurance scheme that is part of your annual road tax. In 2002 it cost about £30 for a year. I'm not a big fan of government run schemes but any UK government that wants to win votes should just introduce a similar scheme here. It would instantly get rid of all those spurious whiplash claims that inflate your premiums and would mean that anyone who bothered to buy road tax would be insured.
The startling thing about this article is not that men are charged more for insurance (duh) but that an 18 year old would need to pay £3400 a year to insure a 2003 Corsa. That is insane. My first year's insurance (on a Mk3 Escort in 1994) cost me £600. And I thought that was steep. There is no way I could have afforded to learn to drive if it cost me that much to insure the car.
Perhaps we're about to see a generation of non-drivers, or at least one where only the Haves drive. That should sit nicely with the generation that can no longer afford a home and the one that can't afford to get educated.
Motor insurance, by the way, is pure crookery. It's a compulsory part of owning a car (ie living outside London) yet is not regulated in any way. New Zealand has a compulsory 3rd party personal insurance scheme that is part of your annual road tax. In 2002 it cost about £30 for a year. I'm not a big fan of government run schemes but any UK government that wants to win votes should just introduce a similar scheme here. It would instantly get rid of all those spurious whiplash claims that inflate your premiums and would mean that anyone who bothered to buy road tax would be insured.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)